The conversation of a national health care plan has been a subject up for debate in this country for a long time. The problem with the debate has been and for the most part still today, viewed by the nation, as socialist reformers. The threat of another "RED SCARE" is enough to keep conservatives and liberals alike voting against a national expansion of government like health care! Socialism is a curse word in this country and the the detractors of a national health care system use it as such to keep us, the voters, afraid of embracing a better way to care for other Americans, with and without preexisting health care coverage. Should profit be at the crux of a health care plan? Is there a better way?
I hate to think that a movie is needed to prompt a discussion on the necessity for a national health care system. Michael Moore's latest film "Sicko" highlights a vital concern over the United States health care system, not just for the uninsured, but for the people who think they are insured as well. While I am sure most certain that Moore's editorial film speaks of his concerns and the way he views the ills of the American health care system. I think a few points he makes, especially about the rise of the HMO (health maintenance organization), are valid for all Americans to take notice. Just because you may be insured, does not mean you are covered.
How could the United States, the world's strongest economic center, be lacking in the field of medical care? The insinuation of anything less than the best or the greatest infuriates the policy makers of this country with the vast amount of resources at our disposal. Unfortunately, that is what we have in the modern age of medicine. American citizens having to sell their house, because they cannot pay their hospital bills. Young couples going broke, before they get a chance to build a financial base, due to the expenses attached to having a baby. Did you know that the number one reason for bankruptcy and foreclosure on homes in this country is due to people's inability to pay their medical bills? I am not saying that I don't believe in getting paid for an honest day of work, but what is honest about putting someone out of their home? If the motto for all those who choose to practice medicine is "do no harm", I guess they are not speaking of harm to your wallet.
The common defenses of our system is the American ability to choose your own doctor, and the luxury to have the top pharmaceutical companies be able to make products in the U.S. That is great! Companies with strong financial outlooks aid the American economy, but since when did it become okay for pharmaceutical companies to hold our nation hostage? Great Britain (which has 2 of the 8 most profitable pharmaceutical companies) has federally subsidized prescription drug prices and a national health care plan that allows doctors to work in subsets of 9, and the British citizens are allowed to choose the group or subset from which they receive medical care. This system still provides the doctors the ability to live with a modest income that keeps themselves in a BMW and their wives in Aston Martins. Why couldn't that system be here?
The rush of animosity from the idea of the socialization of any private service, will bring a nice stir to a debate between liberals and conservatives, liberals and liberals and conservatives and conservatives. If anyone has watched the posturing between the Democrats in their campaigns and speeches, they can see that there is no congruent plan between any two people. Maybe all of the issues begin with our ego? Our big American, everything we do is the best, ego. We cannot admit defeat in combat, and now we cannot concede in policy administration either. Big Brother is going to run our lives, if we let them run healthcare, first by making us live longer and healthier, then by putting more money back in our pocket. How Horrible!
1 comment:
People should read this.
Post a Comment