I was sitting at the doctor's office the other week with an inflamed lower left lung waiting for my name to be called. Across from me there was a mother sitting with her son. She had been there since I arrived. The lady at the front desk called her over with some problem involving the insurance company. I couldn't make out exactly what they were talking about but what it appeared to be was that the mother had a sick child and her insurance company would not cover the visit for this particular doctor. The mother inquired about the cost of the visit uninsured, the lady at the desk said, impassionately, $250. The mother left. As I sat there I felt a string of moral remorse for the sick child and concerned mother. Flash forwarding to the pharmacy. I was in Walgreens leaning against the corner of a wall sitting on a cushy chair waiting for the pharmacist to fill the medication the doctor had proscribed for my lung. An old man walked to the front of the pharmacist's counter. He was there to pick up a prescription that had been filled a week ago. The lady pulled the drug from a cabinet behind her and asked him if he knew that his health insurance company declined to pay for the medicine. He said in an innocent manner, "I guess so" and asked what the cost would be. She said "$100". The man stood back for a second and said "$100 bucks? For that little thing?". The lady asked, "Would you still like to pay for it?". The man said "No Thanks" and walked away.
I looked at the floor. I was experiencing a moral dilemma. You see I believe in capitalism, that its design, in all of Adam Smith's wisdom, is superior to any form of socialism or communism. But yet here I was watching two people denying themselves health care because its cost. I asked myself "Could National Healthcare be the solution?" .
A National Healthcare system would not deny anyone any coverage because of price, all individuals would be able to enjoy medicine, doctor visits, and treatment required to continue to live. The government would have the power then, to hold costs in check and would be able to experience giant economies of scale given the large client list of the American Public. But what would happen to the overall quality of healthcare? Doesn't the government, by restricting profits of the pharmaceutical industry and prices that doctors can charge, inhibit the game changing component that good old competition brings to the table? Would the level technology that has advanced over the years deteriorate because companies could no longer profit from their creation? These questions are tough and the answers so subjective. Do you guys have any idea as to which might be the better solution?
2 comments:
First of all, thank you for giving me a mature comment as well, and secondly, I’m responding to this post in respect to your comment on my page as well. I just want to ask you, have your firsthand experiences of people not being able to afford medicine lead you to question if America’s government is doing all it can to serve the people and give them the opportunity to pursue happiness?
Kind of a long question I know, but shouldn’t this goal be second to none if it’s feasible? If other countries can do it, then why can’t the “best” country in the world do it as well? Yes it is a socialist characteristic, and the very idea of socialism led government officials to scare Americans into thinking that national healthcare could lead the whole government to revert to socialism in the event that it is reinstated. Which, isn’t really the worst form of government, it would actually benefit the majority of Americans. If the government controlled healthcare, than they could determine the prices of medication and pay doctors in respect to their credentials, and on their performance in making their patients healthier. Rather than the current system, which one’s wage is determined solely on credentials, the hour’s one works, and the amount of patients they see. This would create a great incentive to actually cure one’s patients rather than see as many as possible.
A thousand people died on 9/11, to prevent this happening again, we invaded Iraq, which is costing us billions. 18 thousand die a year, and we don’t do anything. I’d rather have guaranteed coverage from the government than let the insurance companies profit off of us. If we cut back on the military bases abroad, we could probably only raise our taxes to 20%. And lastly, if everyone knew that healthcare was taken care of, and we didn’t have to keep that emergency money stored away, the middle class of America would be able to enjoy his or her life comfortably. Which would enable everyone to have the opportunity to pursue his or her own happiness.
Sorry for the assumption of your gender, I don't know how I came to that conclusion. Universal Health care would have setbacks for the economies big industries as they would no longer be in service unless financed through the government. The government is about making profit as well, so incentive would not play a part as the government would be searching for more efficient medicine as well to lessen the amount of medicine one would need. Profit is a catalyst for new ways to do things, but its also an inhibitor in the quality of those items versus the cost. Many pharmaceutical companies have put drugs on the market that have been harmful to the buyers as a result of a lack of study on the drug. The doctors in this country are getting paid too much as well for the wrong reasons. Rather than being paid solely on performance, their paid on the number of procedures and the cost of each procedure. This incentive makes many high income doctors try to see as many patients as possible, and may lead them to recommend the most expensive procedure in order to make their own side profit for administering it. This method of reinforcement does not lead to better service, only to a higher priced service. I see what your saying about how a company should make the most profit for making the best drug. But from a moral standpoint, profit should not be an issue when finding ways to better peoples health. The reason this problem can never be solved to make everyone happy is based on the economic status of the individual and the affect of this wealth on these rich people that deter them from making an overall better choice.(in my opinion) The rich don't want to give a higher percentage of their taxes as they can afford the current health care with ease. The companies of course don't want to go out of business. The middle class and poor obviously need it. The senate who are faced with these decisions are given money by lobbyists to deter them from changing the way things are done. Why would a company focused on profit give money to the senate if they knew that their system was the best one? And lastly, American's do have rights to a produced service: Education. If the government pays for the development of our mind, shouldn't they "invest" in the nation by ensuring that these minds don't die?
Post a Comment