Reason in the Health Care Debate

Quote of the day:
“Life in Lubbock, Texas taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you’re going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love.”
--Butch Hancock

The health-insurance debate is back, thanks to the Democratic presidential candidates and Michael Moore’s movie Sicko, which is opening in a week. See the February 1 post How We Ration Doctor Visits.

Just like every issue debated and shouted about in the press, we hear a disproportionate amount from two extremes. It’s either
“LOOK OUT! SOCIALISM, RATIONING, AND LONG LINES ARE COMING!!!”
or
“PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, HEALTH INSURERS, HOSPITAL COMPANIES, AND DOCTORS ARE ALL CORRUPT AND FAT!!!”

Let’s be reasonable, shall we? Is it possible for us to gradually acknowledge a few things? For example, that there is much good about our health-care system? And that there are way too many people who can’t get reasonable access to it?

We also need to recognize that, as businesses, the drug manufacturers, health insurers and for-profit hospitals have priorities that may not be in line with all of our goals as a nation. Any business, big or small, is always seeking primarily to lower costs and raise prices. It’s the nature of free enterprise.

If our goal is to make health care more-accessible for those who can’t afford it, it will increase costs. This goes directly against the highest priority of our health providers. This means that the government has to be involved, as it is with Medicare.

This does not mean that we are headed toward “socialized medicine.” It also does not necessarily mean that the system will be wildly inefficient.

But, if our goal is to provide health care access to those who need it but can’t afford it, we will need to deal with change and occasional inefficiency.