Last Thursday, House Republicans published ten "common sense" questions arising from President Obama's health care reform speech. (Hat tip to ADoc2Be who mentions this on her own blog.) Here are the statements from the speech and the questions thereof:
And here are some additional questions, food for thought, mainly. . .
Just what is our goal here? Do we wish to insure everyone? What is the basis for this desire? Are we saying morally that all life is important, and everyone needs to have access to care, and should that care be equal for all? If so, we must insure everyone possible. And I mean EVERYONE. Illegals, citizens of other nations, etc. If the moral imperative exists to provide health care, then we must do so for all. GLOBALLY. Mr. Obama's plan, and the mentality that we must provide ( equally is implied) for all of our citizens just as the Socialist nations of the world seem to be doing is apparently based on flawed, jingoistic, nationalistic ideals, yes? It says that we have an obligation to help ONLY our fellow citizens, and how could that be true? A life is a life is a life, right? IF this is our goal, then we cannot allow distinction between a American's life, and an illegal-alien's life. Or the life of someone in Africa? Or India? Or China? And, if all life needs to be preserved, how do we justify allowing (or encouraging) abortion?
I'm just asking philosophical questions. Just something to think about. Here's some more to consider.
We will need quite a few more physicians to accomplish the goal of caring for EVERYONE, even if we incorrectly and unfairly limit this only to every US citizen. How will they train? Those of us who went through medical school know that the patients who present to a training institution (say, a county hospital with a high indigent population) are treated by medical students and residents, albeit under the supervision of an experienced physician. IF everyone deserves equal care, is this FAIR? Would you submit to having a junior medical student suture a laceration on your daughter's face? Why should an indigent have to suffer this humiliation? That's not FAIR, is it?
And another thought. My daughter the pre-med has given me the following analogy, gleaned from her Ethics class: You are walking down a country road, and you see a baby floating face-down in the middle of a nearby pond. Could you just continue to walk by and live with yourself later? Of course not. In this tale, the uninsured are represented by the baby, and we cannot live with ourselves without helping them, and the assumption is made that we aren't helping them. The analogy is heart-rending, but not completely accurate. First, we DO help. My group writes off literally millions of dollars in care for "self-pay" patients. We all know that "self-pay" means "no-pay" but we care for them anyway. Between that and the 50% I presently pay in taxes, I'm doing a HELL OF A LOT more for the poor than just about anyone who wants to criticize me. How much more should I do? Secondly, we can assume that the baby didn't want to end up face down in the pond. But many of our most ill citizens got that way via the vices I outlined above. They may not have explicitly chosen to acquire lung cancer when they lit up a cigarette, but they knew the consequences and rolled the dice. Do we have the obligation to pay for their care? Does an alcoholic dying of cirrhosis deserve a liver-transplant at our expense? Is it FAIR, is it RIGHT?
Back to an earlier point. If this is such an emergency, if insuring EVERYONE is the FAIR and RIGHT thing to do, then we should do so with all possible haste, and damn the cost. We should print money to cover this overwhelming necessity, well, no, let's just declare the health care is FREE, that anything and everything everyone needs is to be delivered gratis. Doctors and other health care workers, and especially pharmaceutical companies won't be paid, because filthy profit should have no say in health care, should it? No, let's do this right, folks.
While we're at it, it isn't FAIR that there are people in this country, and in the rest of the world, for that matter, who don't have enough to eat. Starting now, all food needs to be given away free as well, since people may die or become ill without adequate nutrition. OK, let's start slow. We'll have
I could go on, but I won't. Some of my readers have probably blown Circle-of-Willis aneurysms by now, and they will be overtaxing their local health-care delivery systems.
As I did before the last election, I am simply asking you to think about the implications of what you are demanding. I will very stubbornly continue to think that the current "emergency" push for health care revision is nothing more than a sham that has conned a lot of kind-hearted folks (mainly liberals) into BELIEVING. I do realize that our health-care system needs reform, and I doubt that anyone would seriously argue otherwise. But think long and hard about the change you wish to bring about, and why you want it. Think.