Hands Off Our Health!
In this age of loss of personal freedoms and intrusions on our privacy by Uncle Sam, credit card companies, the IRS, law enforcement agencies, health insurance companies, banks, and the Internet, it is any wonder that looking over our shoulders has become as reflex as a knee jerk! Inherent in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, whether stated implicitly, explicitly, or even with duplicity, is the notion that we are free to choose how we live our lives and under what circumstances we wish to live our lives. For far too long now, big government and big business have teamed up, whether consciously or unconsciously, to gradually erode a long series of our basic and civil liberties. The right to adequate and guaranteed health care for all citizens, regardless of race, creed, national origin, or socioeconomic status (SES), however, must remain immutable and untouched. It is the cornerstone of any democracy, and a gauge by which we judge the health of a nation and its collective sanity. There is no debate on the principle of horizontal equity of health care, as any rational citizen of any country worth its weight in this world would most likely agree that “equal treatment for equal need” is a sine qua non, before any discussion of city, state, or federal implementation of health care policy can even begin. Once a decision has been made to incorporate all SES facets of a particular population in the discussion of, and under the umbrella of, a national health care policy, then free wills and open minds must prevail to determine the extent to which a community, a city, a state, or the federal government exercises control over the mental and physical destinies of its inhabitants. That is no easy matter, as private insurance companies and hospitals vie with local public and national authorities for precious health care dollars and the lucrative “baby boomer” and government welfare trades. Competition is intense in this market, and without some form of regulation and uniformity, whether it be local, state, or federal, there is the incessant danger that what one sees on paper will not be what one gets when receiving the “cold shower” resulting from close review of that first hospital or doctor’s bill after recovery. Furthermore, we, as a society, are not getting any younger, and it becomes more and more difficult to decipher the fine print and riders that have become standard fare in most health insurance statement of benefits. Not a day goes by without our parents, who for the most part are senior citizens, receiving some form of printed Medicare propaganda in the mail from nameless and faceless individuals, representing the ever-increasing cadre of private health insurance companies, hawking the pros of their companies while diminishing or excluding the cons. It never fails that such leaflets, fliers, letters, or brochures trigger a litany of questions from our elderly parents that, to be frank, we cannot answer. We would most likely need advanced degrees in law and health management to do so. Therefore, the question arises as to who guarantees the correct design, development, implementation, and communication of health care programs and health care policy. Is it the job of the city? The state? The federal government?
Developed nations like the U.S. and Switzerland have sought answers to these questions for quite some time now. With health care financed by a combination of private and supplementary insurance, out-of-pocket payments, taxes, donations, and city, state, and federal social programs, the “push and pull” for control of health care at all levels of society and governmental bureaucracy has become never-ending. Consumer-driven health care continues to reign in the U.S. and Switzerland, but those trends are destined to decline in favor of increased governmental control, as world economies “cool down” and immigration of the poor from underdeveloped nations to those more technologically and economically advanced increases exponentially. With government subsidies and tax revenues to finance hospitals outpacing local support, governments are demanding more and more “say” in how health resources are dispersed, what health resources are dispersed, and in what measure. While federal tax breaks for hospitals and institutions that strictly adhere to governmental mandates do not guarantee standard of care, they do extend a disproportionate degree of control over our lives to top-heavy agencies that may take financial bottom lines more to heart than social equity and welfare. So, we do have a dilemma here, and we are hard pressed to render unbiased, objective opinions on the matter. What we can say, however, with a certain amount of certitude, is that without U.S. government intervention, programs like Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, WIC, and Social Security would be “dead in the water.” Nonetheless, the efficiency of those programs in the long term remains in doubt, especially in the current economic climate. Also, while government may, indeed, control the purse strings, tailored community approaches to health care may be more efficient (both financially and logistically) to address specific local needs, and to develop and implement specific local interventions.
Hands off our health! Then, again, we’re not ticklish.
© 2009, Albert M. Balesh, M.D. All rights reserved.
Developed nations like the U.S. and Switzerland have sought answers to these questions for quite some time now. With health care financed by a combination of private and supplementary insurance, out-of-pocket payments, taxes, donations, and city, state, and federal social programs, the “push and pull” for control of health care at all levels of society and governmental bureaucracy has become never-ending. Consumer-driven health care continues to reign in the U.S. and Switzerland, but those trends are destined to decline in favor of increased governmental control, as world economies “cool down” and immigration of the poor from underdeveloped nations to those more technologically and economically advanced increases exponentially. With government subsidies and tax revenues to finance hospitals outpacing local support, governments are demanding more and more “say” in how health resources are dispersed, what health resources are dispersed, and in what measure. While federal tax breaks for hospitals and institutions that strictly adhere to governmental mandates do not guarantee standard of care, they do extend a disproportionate degree of control over our lives to top-heavy agencies that may take financial bottom lines more to heart than social equity and welfare. So, we do have a dilemma here, and we are hard pressed to render unbiased, objective opinions on the matter. What we can say, however, with a certain amount of certitude, is that without U.S. government intervention, programs like Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, WIC, and Social Security would be “dead in the water.” Nonetheless, the efficiency of those programs in the long term remains in doubt, especially in the current economic climate. Also, while government may, indeed, control the purse strings, tailored community approaches to health care may be more efficient (both financially and logistically) to address specific local needs, and to develop and implement specific local interventions.
Hands off our health! Then, again, we’re not ticklish.
© 2009, Albert M. Balesh, M.D. All rights reserved.
posted by Dr. Al at
5/07/2009 09:13:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home