Some notes on healthcare reform
Apparently health care reform in the U.S. is all the rage right now, and I've been reading about it in the news and the comments posted on the various articles. I thought I would write down a few details that I think are largely missing from the ongoing conversation (and unfortunately, would really set a lot of people straight):
- U.S. life expectancy falls behind that of other countries. While this is true, it has very little to do with health care. It's common knowledge that most other developed countries, like France and Japan, have far healthier citizens than the USA. Obesity is one of the biggest factors that comes into play here. For some real facts behind the numbers, see this article. A much more relevant measure is the life expectancy of people with terminal diseases, such as the life expectancy of a cancer patient in the U.S. vs. other countries. Unfortunately, this data does not support the notion that the U.S. healthcare system needs changing, hence it is ignored. If we do get nationalized health care in the U.S., and the government does nothing to guarantee healthier lifestyles (such as imposing regulations on the kind of food that can be served at your corner McDonald's), then we ought to be ready for failure.
- Prescription drugs are a racket. Pharmaceutical companies are creating a drug-dependent society at a huge profit and this is a cost that will only increase as the solution to every health problem continues to be "take these pills." There is a big difference between funding emergency care and funding prescription drugs for chronic health problems. Are you willing to let your tax dollars go to paying for cholesterol meds for a 45 year old man with bad cholesterol (a preventable problem)? How about Ritalin for children that probably just need better outlets for their energy?
- Doctors are the best decision makers on patient care. The introduction of health care institutions and government players in the health care system has only served to broaden the gap between doctors and their patients. When you go to the doctor, do you want your care to depend on your level of need or the potential for cost-savings for your health care provider? If you get your health care coverage from a company, chances the latter always applies. When you are attended to by a nurse or hospitalist rather than a doctor, or you are prescribed generic drugs instead of brand-name ones, that's the health care system at work. Government-led health care reform will not help doctors care for their patients any more than the current system, and to be honest, we should be focusing on what is best for doctors.
- It is very likely that the bills for health care reform will include mandates for taxpayer-funded abortion coverage. Check this page for more information.
These are just a few notes; I don't claim to be an expert on health care, but there's a lot of propaganda out there that just needs to be rebutted. I honestly think that the current plans for health care reform will not improve health care in the U.S. at all, and will only serve to drive our country further into debt. There's change, and then there's change for the better… Obama never promised the latter.
2 Comments
Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.
A thought:
You state under point 2 that "Are you willing to let your tax dollars go to paying for cholesterol meds for a 45 year old man with bad cholesterol (a preventable problem)? How about Ritalin for children that probably just need better outlets for their energy?".
But your third point is that "Doctors are the best decision makers on patient care." Doctors prescribe drugs like ritalin and cholesterol meds, and according to you they are the best people to decide that. Yet you say that taxpayers shouldn't be paying for these drugs? Should the doctors decide that not you?
Also your first point is valid, but most people don't point to life expectancy they point to infant mortality rates when considering our healthcare system's effectiveness. And we spend more on healthcare, yet have a decidedly low infant mortality rate for an industrial country. Clearly something needs to be done.
Mark, points 2 and 3 do not contradict each other. If a man at age 45 has high cholesterol, chances are that there is little he can do to reverse it; cholesterol meds are the right prescription for the problem. That being said, I do not want my tax dollars covering that prescription. If you have lived a life of excess, you ought to be able to afford the medical help you are going to need to face the consequences. As for a kid with Ritalin, this plays on another problem: who stands to benefit from prescription drugs. The pharmaceutical companies should not make the decisions, because they are always playing for profit. The government might seem like a fair player, but considering how many pharmaceutical companies are lobbying in D.C., we can't trust elected officials to put the consumers before big corporations. The health insurance system might seem like another fair player, but their goal is always to cut costs, because they are always trying to maximize their share. This is why your standard health insurance provider will pay for generics, but not the brand-name meds that actually work. In the end, my vote goes to the medical professional that went to school for 10+ years and has hopefully examined the patient directly. They are independent parties, not big corporations or government entities, and it is usually in their best interest to help patients get better.
Note: I am not saying that prescription drugs are always bad, but I do think that in order to reign in our health care spending, regardless of where the money is coming from, we need to steer away from being a drug-dependent society.
As for my first point, I'm sorry to say, but most people on web forums and comments do point to life expectancy as a measure of the success of our health care system. I wouldn't have mentioned it otherwise. As for infant mortality, there are disparities between how each country measures this. There are also challenges to comparing people of each race in each country, since mortality rates are affected by race. My point still stands, however; there is nothing about the current proposals for health care reform that seeks to remedy this problem, or any other health problems; it's only about changing the hands that handle the money in the health care system.