Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Is The President Telling Us Everything We Need To Know About National Health Care?

If President Obama gets his way, nationalized health care will be rammed down the throats of the American people. Again today the President said, “If you like your doctor, if you like your health plan, you can keep them and the only difference is that you will pay less for that coverage.” I am not going to accuse the President of being a liar, but I will say that his statement seems nonsensical. Currently I pay $25 to see a doctor, $15 for my prescriptions and $500 if I am hospitalized. My employer pays my premiums and my deductible is $2,500; $1,000 of which my employer will reimburse. Also, my company employs less than twenty-five people. I am in good health and have not seen a doctor or taken any medications in the last eighteen months. In other words, for the last year and a half I have been covered by health care but I have paid exactly ZERO.

Now obviously, just because I haven’t paid anything doesn’t mean that nothing has been paid. My health insurance, like my vacation, is a benefit of my employment. Under the President’s plan it would no longer make sense for my employer to continue providing that benefit. So, under the President’s plan the cost of what I receive now would be much higher, not lower as the President stated. Further, the care I receive would not be between my doctor and I as it is now. National health care is rationed health care.

Peter Singer wrote an article that appeared in the NY Times today titled Why We Must Ration Health Care. Singer is simply stating a fact that everyone agrees on but our President and Congressman won’t admit to because the Devil is in the details and they don’t want anyone to know what those details are until national health care has been passed. Singer on the other hand, is neither a politician nor known for being ’politically correct.’ (Singer believes that sex with animals is okayas long as both parties enjoy it.) Singer has long advocated that some humans; the unborn, newly born, disabled, elderly, are worth less than others and therefore, it is only logical that health care be rationed according to a person’s worth to society as a whole. Looking at health care dispassionately, if society is paying for care then society should get as much ‘bang for its buck’ as possible.

The logic under this type of health plan is that treating a disabled child deprives society of resources that could be spent in a more productive manner. Accordingly, these types of decisions can be difficult for an individual or family to make, therefore, the decision should be made by a government body. The problem with this is that Americans believe in individuality, freedom and self-determination. We feel very passionately about our loved ones and do not want their fate to rest in the hands of a dispassionate government body. Singer and others may argue that our current system is inefficient and illogical but isn’t it also illogical that the same people who absolutely support a woman’s right to choose abortion would deny a woman has the right to have her disabled child receive medical treatment?

Ask yourself, if this plan is so good and so necessary, why is Congress exempting themselves from participating in it? It is because they know that they and their loved ones are receiving far better care now than they would under a public plan. If it is not good enough for them, it is not good enough for us either.

No comments: