Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Why Universal Health Care?


Scott said...

TJ, you often rail against the fear mongering tactics of the right, then you post the exploitation of this kids grief for political reasons. This is beyond repulsive, no one dies simply because they have no health insurance, they die of terminal illnesses, health insurance is only a method of paying for medical care. This is how screwed up this argument has become. We are talking about methods of payment, but the left loves to parade out a bevy of victims and tug on your heart strings to try to guilt people into supporting their legislation.

I know a whole lot more people who died with health insurance than without, perhaps we should make insurance illegal. Of course that is a stupid non-sequitor, but it is as ridiculous to assert that this boy's mother, and anyone else who died without insurance would have survived their illnesses if insurance were current.

Bottom line, this boy's mom died of cancer, not lack of insurance, and I defy you to locate one single death certificate that lists under "cause of death" "lack of health insurance".

T.J. Shelby said...

So much to discuss, where do I begin?

His mother had pulmonary hypertension, which is non-terminal if treated. However, the possible treatments are expensive. They cost money.

And when they can't afford to pay for health insurance and cannot receive treatment, their treatable diseases/conditions become terminal...and they die.

Or when the insurance companies decide to deny coverage to patients for any number of reasons but ultimately all funnel into the "because we will lose money on covering this individual" category...they do not receive treatments and die.

As a blogger friend of mine recently said, "The free market works really well, when you consider electronics and consumer goods, but Health Care isn't a consumer good. It's a service which is based on need, not on want, and therefore the free market simply can't work on it."

Addressing my propagation of "fear mongering tactics" and "exploitation of this kids grief for political reasons." I find it very hard to believe you cannot see the difference between this (and maybe it's because you don't see health care as a right but a privilege) and real actual fear mongering.

* Prop 8ers comparing gays to pedophiles
* FoxNews "accidently" imposing images of Barack Obama after saying phrases like "muslim" "Osama Bin Laden" etc
* Anytime Glenn Beck opens his mouth about prison camps, General Mao, Hitler, Stalin etc,

Fear mongering generally uses bold faced lies to spread their beliefs.

Someone dying from treatable illnesses because it won't look good on a profit and loss report or because someone cannot afford health insurance...and a method of paying for the treatments that will extend their NOT fear mongering.

It's an f-ing wake up call.

And I bet you can find a death certificate that lists "lack of health insurance" as a cause of's in the file right behind Obama's Kenyan birth certificate.

Nicole Shelby said...

Scott: since my husband is the logical and rational one, I'll leave the intelligent responses to him.

I don't usually comment. However, I could not believe YOUR comments! Are you sincere? Unbelievable! I have a loss of coherent ability to make me angry and afraid - too many blind and apathetic people agree with you.

Scott said...

Here is my main complaint about tactics here. Similar to Cindy Shehan's anti-war protest, you use a person to present a point of view that then cannot be criticized least you be perceived as heartless. Of course I have sympathy for this boy losing his mother, but using that sympathy to try to persuade someone to vote for a partisan agenda is wrong. Nicole proves my point on this, I disagree with using this boy essentially as a prop to "guilt" legislators into voting for a bill, and my views are perceived as "blind and apathetic".

As to the insurance debate, the only decision an insurance company can make is weather or not to pay for something. They cannot tell deny you treatment. This woman had health insurance, but lost it when she lost her job and did not continue with cobra (which I am just assuming she could not afford). At that point the insurance company is off the hook, she is no longer insured, no longer their responsibility.

The real question is why was she not covered by existing government plans like medicare or medicade, or whatever state versions exist in Washington? Why is it when existing government programs fail the solution is to make those failed programs bigger?

My final note on this, is there are some aspects to the two current bills bouncing around that I like, I think efforts should be made to make medical insurance and treatments more affordable. I think insurance companies need to be held more responsible for questionable tactics. I think individuals with their chosen medical professionals, not bureaucrats need to be making all health decisions. However, there is a bunch of stuff I dislike. I want to reserve my privacy and not tell the government if I have insurance and how much. I don't want to lose the right to fire my current insurance company and go with another if I choose. Bottom line for me is, I am fine with fixing the current system, not scrapping it and giving the keys to the federal government.

Nicole Shelby said...

Don't even. My emotional response is not to the boy, but to your comments. Much personal experience has made health care an emotional topic for me.

Trusting in Health Insurance Companies seems way more naive than trusting in Gov.

Seems like an easy step to repulsive Bioethics philosophy to me.