avarice and health

Avarice and Health

Many bloggers are discussing the nature of people going into extreme

debt at this time of year - procuring expensive electronic items with

little to no argument about the cost. It is, of course, only natural

to make the connection between the money spent on frivolous

expenditures while we wring our hands over what to do about the poor

and healthcare. What must be seen, if you haven't already seen the

absurd juxtaposition is this: these same people, who spend several

hundreds to thousands of dollars for one day's avarice are the exact

same who bemoan the cost of healthcare and villify the physician.

Personally I have changing views on the subject. I used to believe

that universal coverage was the best option - in effect, socialized

medicine. Then I began reading about the Canadian and the NHS, their

troubles, and realized that, even though their citizens are covered,

they had harder times getting people to use the system correctly,

providers throughout all spectrums were incredibly taxed to work

"within" the system, and the outcomes were not much improved. Now I

find myself less inclined towards universal healthcare, but struggling

to find a plan that makes the most sense.

I do know that some of the political ideas of taxing physicians in

order to help cover healthcare for the poor are just monstrously

ignorant. Why should those who have to suffer direct losses from this

patient population be forced to incur further decompensation simply

because of their profession? Do we honestly expect doctors, the one

profession that has little to no say in what they receive in

reimbursement, to keep allowing insurance companies to decrease their

payments precipitously while, at the same time begin taxing them for

indigent populations for whom they've never received compensation?

Would lawyers be so willing, I wonder, to take hits in the same

respect as that offered by some of their colleagues? We all know the

answer to that.

The idea of requisite health insurance seems more on the right track.

We require people to have car insurance based on the degree of risk

inherent with owning an automobile, so why not coverage for their

health needs? Certainly people realize that at one time or another

they'll need the healthcare industry - either for minor ailments or

severe conditions - and should be more capable of contributing towards

their care. We are, as humans, inherently at risk each and every day.

Making people comprehend that they are responsible for covering their

asses won't be easy though. Massachussets has had significant backlash

regarding their plan, some due to the significant cost of covering

oneself, but a great deal from the parasitic nature of lower income

and young populations. The idea of having to pay for something that

one might never use has been routinely touted as a justifiable reason

to avoid insurance mandates by those refusing to buy into the idea.

Despite the problems encountered by Massachussets, I feel its ideals

are on the right track - shifting the responsibility onto those who

are actually culpable for their actions and less on those who just

have to deal with them. People are so eager to get the newest cell

phone accessory, iPod, or fanciest TV regardless of their income

level, but refuse to spend a few bucks each week towards their

healthcare. Cigarettes continue to increase in price, yet the 1+ pack

per day smoker doesn't cut down on their habit, just their luxuries -

like bills and responsible spending. I cannot count the numerous times

I've seen someone with little to no insurance, complaining about the

cost of their care, with a fancy cell phone, cigarettes, and a tricked

out car who inevitably heads to the nearest fast food chain for lunch.

It's actually quite ironic to consider that the money spent on these

gadgets and behaviors actually decreases one's health (cancer, hearing

loss, obesity, HTN, heart disease, etc.).

While I certainly don't have the answer, I do feel socialized medicine

is not the option that's best for this country. As a 4th year medical