Brother, can you spare a PET scan?
Hartford CT or Washington DC?
This is a question I ask when discussing the national health care crisis with people. Generally these are people who are not, let us be clear, experiencing any sorts of actual health care crises. Except occasionally in the form of having an actual health issue. In which case the cream of American medical prowess is brought instantly to bear – very often saving the life of a sixty year old who would have simply, died, forty years ago. This is what’s known as a ‘good outcome’ when analyzing the sociological dimension of health care.
About 14% of the population (43 millions) in one form or another, or to one degree or another are much less assured of these good outcomes and can, in fact, experience just the opposite – call them bad outcomes or, more than occasionally, you could call it: death. In the sense that the sick person does, in fact, expire lifeless from the condition that the ‘good outcome’ subject survives intact (physically and financially).
The reasons for the difference in outcomes for the two persons we consider above are as numerous (and, in some sense… numinous) as there are people to argue their own granular points of view. The facts, however, are subject to very limited dispute possessed of any analytical rigor.
So, why does Joe Smith (age 58, lawyer in New York City, educated in a good northeastern school) survive early course chemotherapy for colon cancer and emerge free of the disease 11 months later and live until he is 87 – whereas Jonas Lyons (age 53, dishwasher at Denny’s in Hattiesburg MS, ex-con, high school dropout) find himself in a rather uncomfortable interview with St. Peter 5 months after getting a bad stomach ache? Again – pick your reason, pick your argument, your philosophical base of righteousness (or guilt or certainty, or … what have you) and debate it all you like.
These discussions don’t change the facts. There are some haves and some have nots in this very central (economically and socially) sphere of the American life. Should there be? I would say no. Others would say (grudgingly, perhaps sadly even) – yes.
In my mind this have/have not condition is the central pivot around which the thorny and passionate (passion – in the sense of… well, death) opinions and beliefs which concern the issue compete in the social and political marketplace.
Virtually (actually, literally) all of the rich, Western democratic nation-states have pretty much come down on this issue previously. And somewhat emphatically. They have said, as peoples of diverse and distinct national character, but shared economic and social values, in essence, no. No, there should not be a medical ‘underclass’ in their societies.
They have implemented this national decision in various ways – described, typically, by opponents of health care reform in the United States as ‘socialized medicine’. For various reasons (brevity, unwillingness to engage in the tedious linguistics of bipolar party politics, and so forth) I will, as lawyers occasionally do, stipulate that we may use this (incendiary dog whistle of a term) to describe the medical systems of:
The United Kingdom
Australia
France
Germany
Italy
Japan
Norway
Spain
.
.
.
And dozens of other first world countries with (otherwise) capitalistic economic systems and long(ish) but stable traditions of what even Bill O’Reilly would have to concede are democratic governmental features.
Socialized Medicine. On the right hand side of the discussion.
Haves/Have nots. Representing the left.
It could be argued that the central differences in these points of view regard the choice of where one would care to have the medical decisions which are out of his control made. Washington? Or Hartford? (shorthand for ‘private medical insurance’ – and all that that means in this context)
Due in some measure to the influence and persuasiveness of people like Roger Ailes, what was once mild distaste for government activism in the service of improving the lot of the less fortunate is now, in some significant minority of Americans, an abiding, vituperative hate. This hate frequently is observed in admixture with the word "Socialism!"
Americans have decided, with reference to nothing more than mass media information of questionable objectivity (and perhaps their own well nourished sense of greed – in large part also fed by media spreading the religions of consumerism, individualism and… ultimately capitalism) that ‘ObamaCare’ is going to bankrupt the Federal government and usher in an era of socialism.
Americans have decided, with reference to nothing more than mass media information of questionable objectivity (and perhaps their own well nourished sense of greed – in large part also fed by media spreading the religions of consumerism, individualism and… ultimately capitalism) that ‘ObamaCare’ is going to bankrupt the Federal government and usher in an era of socialism.
A bumper sticker making the rounds . . .
Pretty much the same thing was slated to occur at the dawn of Social Security (1934). It was going to happen again when Medicare/Medicaid (1965) was instituted.
Old Glory’s stars intact, yet to have morphed into little hammers and sickles.
I assure you, the capitalists remain firmly in charge here. And they’re doing pretty good, thanks for asking. The few actual socialists there are in the United States are… well, let’s face it – the vast majority of them are what you might call, with a snigger and a snark, SINOs (Socialists in Name Only).
Socialist Cabinet Minister: Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates
Socialism? I’ll resist the temptation to be drawn into an argument possessed of such obviously ridiculous features. I mean, you know… even if we are turning into a ‘socialist welfare state’ under that wild eyed foreigner Barak Hussein Obama… I assure you the adults (capitalists) are still very much in charge. In fact those very same capitalists are making out quite nicely in the ‘socialized economies’ like… well... Trivia question: Where is Goldman Sachs’ second largest office in terms of profit production?
Goldman Sachs International
Peterborough Court
133 Fleet Street
...deep in the socialist bowels of the City of London.
Anyone with a background in statistics and economics can paint a scary picture of America’s headlong rush into the hand basket of hell as a result of ‘socialistic’ programs. Having a background in both – I feel it wiser (and more honest) to simply state the facts:
The citizenry at large, with the full support of a majority of their elected representatives, have previously decided to spend approximately 10% of the national income on transferring tax payments to the care of the aged (Social Security and Medicare) and the poor (Medicaid)
The citizenry at large, with the full support of a majority of their elected representatives, have previously decided to spend approximately 10% of the national income on transferring tax payments to the care of the aged (Social Security and Medicare) and the poor (Medicaid)
It could be argued, it is argued, that ObamaCare is simply attempting to steer some of that largesse to the 45 million citizens who were left out of the private insurance lottery. Winners in that lottery receive (tongue out of cheek) ‘the finest healthcare in the world’.
Losers get . . . well, they get what they get. It’s all over the map. The new healthcare program – assuming its opponents don’t get it thrown out, which is unlikely in the extreme, no matter the (mostly stupid) posturing now taking place – attempts to close the have/have not gap. And if that proposition scares the hell out of you, I might suggest that you read your Bible. Not that I’m much of a Bible reader, but it seems a lot of folks who are up in arms about these issues do refer to that book from time to time. Sometimes a little more frequently than is comfortable for the 60 percent of us who don’t claim to darken a church house door every week.
Recent health care reform legislation passed by your elected representatives, and mine – and let’s be clear: a majority of those men and women voted for these changes, and we elected them – seeks to remedy some rather glaring shortcomings and inequities of the healthcare system. Whether it will do this or not remains to be seen. What is not in question here is that these inequities and shortcomings exist.
I’m content to let the matter, as envisioned in the massive new law, play out. Contrary to the catcalls of the right regarding the profound ineptitude of the United States Federal Government, one might take the position that the old boys (and girls) seem to have done pretty well in a host of their other historical undertakings.
Anyone who argues that: (i) these accomplishments - all conceived, executed and paid for by the Federal Government - are illusory or accidental and; (ii) the Federal Government has utterly lost its capacity and ability to repeat feats of this scope and import is, in my view... may I say it?.... unpatriotic. I won't. I don't wave the flag very often, really never. It's always felt a little silly to me. I can assure anyone who cares to debate (such an asinine topic) that I am every bit as red blooded a American Capitalist Pig as is Newt Grin-grinch. Just like him - I could probably take up residence in 100 or so countries next week if I took a mind to. Neither of us have. We also have this in common: we both grin a lot and spout off a lot of opinion that we are convinced is correct with out the slightest bit of evidence past our own self satisfied opinion of ourselves.
So Newt- as one southern cat to another:
Please, let's at least cut out cut out all the 'socialism', 'un-American' rhetorical horse shit can we?
Please?
Fucking pretty please (if that would work...)
Will ObamaCare:
- You can get anywhere in this country in three days with $500 on the Interstate System
- (and yes, ok, the national endowment for the humanities funds godless homosexual artists)
- The military establishment has a perfect record of preventing successful invasion here since the British left last time
- Nuclear power produces 20% of our electricity with a fuel source which would never have been developed in the private sector
- (Velcro... NASA... ok, the jury's out on whether this was a good or a bad thing)
- We did go to the goddamned moon
- OK, just one more: while there are plenty of seniors who don’t live in the lap of luxury, Social Security and Medicare provide for the basic human needs for the vast majority of them.
Anyone who argues that: (i) these accomplishments - all conceived, executed and paid for by the Federal Government - are illusory or accidental and; (ii) the Federal Government has utterly lost its capacity and ability to repeat feats of this scope and import is, in my view... may I say it?.... unpatriotic. I won't. I don't wave the flag very often, really never. It's always felt a little silly to me. I can assure anyone who cares to debate (such an asinine topic) that I am every bit as red blooded a American Capitalist Pig as is Newt Grin-grinch. Just like him - I could probably take up residence in 100 or so countries next week if I took a mind to. Neither of us have. We also have this in common: we both grin a lot and spout off a lot of opinion that we are convinced is correct with out the slightest bit of evidence past our own self satisfied opinion of ourselves.
So Newt- as one southern cat to another:
Please, let's at least cut out cut out all the 'socialism', 'un-American' rhetorical horse shit can we?
Please?
Fucking pretty please (if that would work...)
* * *
Dueling Pop/Op Art
Will ObamaCare:
- Bankrupt the country?
- Diminish the overall quality and quantity of healthcare?
- Turn us all into feckless Maoists?
Beats me. I do know this though: most of those selling this story have functioning health insurance cards in their wallets. They get colonoscopies at 50 years old for $85 and die of strokes in nursing homes at 94. Many fewer of them die of late diagnosed diseases which kill a startlingly large number of less fortunate Americans.
Are the haves greedy? Are the have nots stupid or lazy or undeserving? Outside my scope here. Will ObamaCare bankrupt the country and lower the average level and quality of care in the United States? I don’t know. No one else does either.
I can speak from both sides of the outcome matrix (as well, be assured, as both sides of my mouth). I’ve had private insurance and gotten $45,000 operations that saved my life in private hospital rooms. I’ve also been without insurance for significant portions of my life and avoided seeking medical care. As it turns out – I haven’t died yet. Karma or roll of dice - that's my story.
My position is that I’m willing to take my chances with the soulless socialist bureaucrats in Washington rather than negotiate these matters with some $38,000 a year analyst in a call center in Hartford. Actually, I’ve done both. Seriously – I’ll go with the government worker.
If my risky decision above is implemented and the cost of healthcare to the society shrinks from 1 in 7 dollars sluiced through the economy to 1 in 13 (like in the Peoples Republic of… Japan, where they die at 82 – we die at 77) I’m willing to live with it.
choose carefully
3/13/2011
© Mark W. Lee
1,620 words