"What Is The Moral State Of A Nation That Allows An Individual To Go Bankrupt In Pursuit Of Health Care?"

"What Is The Moral State Of A Nation That Allows An Individual To Go Bankrupt In Pursuit Of Health Care?"

This is a popular talking point that is heard in the context of today's debate. Those who seek to shift to a "tax payer paid" health care system desire to transfer the cost burden for health care from the individual and the question of his possession of health care insurance (often provided by the employer).

CNN: Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies

These type of news stories seem appealing on the front end. Per our dysfunctional health care system and the economics surrounding them people are put into bankruptcy as they pursue their own interests of "staying alive". The cold hearted, money grubbing health care industry cares for "profits over people". The government needs to step in and push the money grubbers out of the industry. If you watch "The Bill Moyer's Journal", as I do, THIS is the solution to all of our problems in health care. He brings on guests to tee up the criticisms of "multiple tax payer paid health care" and then they tear down these "strawmen". At the end of the show "THEIR SYSTEM" is the best and expresses our humanity toward others.

In listening to their arguments and then as I apply economic truth I always come away with the notion that I am being "sold a bill of goods". I had this same belief after I attended a community forum on "Single Payer Health Care" sponsored by the local independent, progressive radio station. When the entire panel on stage are in harmony and there is a crowd of old activists and then young and impressionable college students in the audience - what are the chances that a balanced debate will be had?

THE FINE PRINT

In my previous research I proved that the famous "excessive profits" taken by the health insurance companies are just not there. I produced a newspaper article of industry profits. Short of them arguing that the employees working for this industry are paid excessively - these profits which are in the low tens of billions does NOT add up to the hundreds of billions of profits that the critics claim.

It is clear to anyone who dares consider the long term impact of such a government take over. The only way that this nation will be able to add 50 million more people to the tent of the coverage AND provide more services to those who have insurance but are "under-insured" is to initially spend more money on the system as budged by the federal government, paid for by the tax payers.

The system will be initially flush with money. Government Health Care Version 1.0 is going to drive citizens who now have coverage to take advantage of these services . This is going to trigger a demand for more clinics and hospitals to accommodate the crowding that is taking place in the facilities that were built when we had a "capitalistic" health care system and thus health insurance was used as the rationing agent.

Those who seek to have their system work are going to commit to constructing more facilities in order to save face. The are mindful of the critics pointing to Canada's long physical lines or long queues as they wait for procedures. They will commit to NOT allow this to happen. Thus the spending will expand.

At some point the GROWTH in the new government redistribution scheme will get out of control. Just as the present Medicaid expenses are rocking state budgets, this nationalized system is going to rock the federal budget.

The day of reckoning will soon come.

After the health care insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies and the medical equipment manufacturers have their profits "normalized" and the inflation of their growth stripped out .......The cost control mechanisms will be forced target the QUALITY AND TIMELINESS OF SERVICES to the public.

The limited list of procedures and drugs that is the case in socialized medicine is NOT the case due to the lack of WILL to do so. This is an unavoidable element of this system because of MONETARY reasons. With everyone in the nation with a right to "free at the point of service" health care the rationing effect will come in the form of limits upon the system in aggregate.

When I stood up and challenged the progressive panel at the community forum that the "rationing agent" will simply shift from the question of one's "insurance status" over to the question of which drugs/procedures is one allowed to have access to and how long they will wait - the female who claimed to be a nurse at Grady Hospital fired back "there IS NO resource constraint within the United States". From my research of the general thoughts of "these people" what she was really saying is that "This nation has a SPENDING PRIORITY PROBLEM, not a resource problem". The first thing they'd go after is the US MILITARY spending, applying these funds to the insatiable appetite for social spending.

At some point the "easy pickings" that can be gotten from "vice spending" in the view of the progressives (military, prisons, law enforcement, CIA) will be fully plucked. The only option at this point will be for the defenders to accept the the very elements that they had claimed would never happen. They are smarter....."things will be different when we do it", after all.

In my opinion the following statement:

"What Is The Moral State Of A Nation That Allows An Individual To Go Bankrupt In Pursuit Of Health Care?"

will be transformed into the statement:

"What was the rationale of a nation that, in pursuit of their goal to provide universal entitlement for all of its citizens....the nation itself became financially insolvent and now can't provide any of these services for anyone as a solvent and sovereign national entity?"