What prompted this discourse are these two statements:

"Morality is caring for the poor and providing national healthcare 
for the 45 million without health insurance."  Peter Mennona, Jr. 

Same page:  
According to Congressman Pete Stark, Our lack of a guaranteed 
health care safety net indirectly plunges millions into bankruptcy and 
financial ruin who, once sick, cannot afford to pay for their high 
medical treatment costs out-of-pocket.

Providing a Better State
of Health for the Poor?

by Lin Stone

In the Bible John tells his followers that if any man hath two coats let him take one and give to the poor.  Ever since reading that members of Congress -- like the above example -- have been demanding my coat and yours while they assume a cloak of decency about their goals to "help the poor".   The Great Society has gotten rich helping the poor.  The more they help the more poor there are and the richer are those helping them. Now these members of Congress are offering to help out the poor in the health care arena before giving themselves the next pay raise. However, the money to pay for this protection will not appear out of thin air; it comes out of the American Tax Payer's pocket.  It is our coats being given to the poor. 

There is nothing MORAL in FORCING the general tax payer 
to foot the Free Medical System Congress wants to create. 

Yes modern medical care costs us citizens money! I know that personally and all too well.  But ask yourself this:  Is it going to cost the tax payer any less after Congress gets through running the money through its fingers? 

Where is the line drawn? 

Should we pay for toenail trims? Should we pay for mental stress?  Should we pay for the effects of domestic violence when the perpetrator is not charged? 

Should We The People Not In Congress pay for the constant increase of insulin consumption when the patient refuses to go on an approved diet?  Should the public pay the costs of replacing lungs for the boy or girl who brazenly took up smoking and then couldn't quit? Should the public pay the costs for a liver transplant for the alcoholic who set out to prove s/he was bigger than the bottle? Should we pay the experimental costs of treating AIDS?   When brain transplants become possible, should We The People Not In Congress pay the costs to replace that poor brain the drug addict insisted on sizzling?

When should we pay? 

Do we issue Med Credits of $5,000 to each citizen to be used on their little aches and pains throughout the year? Do we pay the hospital expenses of patients only when a physician sends them there for treatment? Do we pay for all the bills our health care system has already been stiffed with?  Do we pay only for medical expenses above $5,000 during a fiscal year? Do we pay 80% of every bill and let the devil take the hindmost? Do we pay for all the drugs prescribed? Do we pay the perennial medical expenses to maintain everyone on life support when their time comes?  

Will we pay every bill presented by every doctor with a sheepskin for every customer s/he can drum up? Whoa.  Now there's a scary thought! 

Just in the past twelve months my family's medical bills have run up past the $31,000.00 mark and NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE BUT TESTING!  Testing, Testing... and we don't know one thing more now than we did before this rash of testing began!  When does it end?  

Who decides when doctors have made enough and when We The People Not In Congress should pay no more?  The way I see it, the National Health Care System will be like a giant HMO; a good idea that can't deal with the reality of human nature.  In an HMO, the quickest way to a good bottom line is to limit and deny services.  That makes sense; a penny unspent is money saved.

Insurance companies and hospitals want to protect their bottom line.  Consequently, the pressure is always there for the Medical Directors to deny as much care as possible in order to cut costs, even if that means pushing physicians toward practices that endanger patients.  

The medical profession is a business and wants to deliver all the service it is capable of giving.  Patients want all the treatment they are entitled to, and -- when there is any doubt -- just a bit more besides.

How can we trust any government agency to keep a good bottom line balanced with OUR needs when it is removed from our bedside as patients and safely distanced from our pain?  

As Congressman David Crocket described it back in the 1830s:  ".. it would never do to lessen the teats when the litter was doubled."  Give us a government funded health care system and almost immediately there will be anguished tax payers screaming against the expense on the one hand -- and tormented families crying for their expenses to be met on the other hand.  Doctors will be chomping at their bits to do more testing and more experimenting, and fraud will ripple through the automated payment systems in a never-ending wave.  There will be hustles springing up from hospitals, medical offices, nursing homes and with home care too.  Professional fakers will be streaming in for their share of the gravy in short order.

In Crockett's time Congress was chastised for voting to help ONE family to survive.  Crockett pointed out that human nature is such that it always wants more, that the line constantly advances.  Was he wrong?  Aren't there many millions of petitioners today who have their medical bills paid by that very same government?    

And yet, has it ever been proven that our unhampered modern health care system would actually provide a better state of health to American citizens?  

Doesn't it seem strange at all that the healthiest people in our society 
are those who stay the farthest away from the modern health care system?

Less than two centuries ago women were still so healthy that 99% of those giving birth relied solely on mid-wives. On the same curve as the use of our health care system became more prevalent women have become so frail that Caesarean Section birth operations have become the norm amongst the people blessed with ample funds or adequate insurance. 

Is this because of modern stresses peculiar to modern America?  Obviously not.  Southern women of lofty station were known to need a doctor for every sniffle while the field hands serving in the very same region seldom if ever needed medical attention.  Because SHE was too frail most of these Southern women needed a black woman's breast to suckle her children on.

After The War had brought an end to their prosperity and these frail women were left without access to constant medical assistance their health immediately improved.  Indeed it improved so much that many of them could even wash and iron their own clothes!

There are two classes of people who receive uninterrupted attention from the modern health care system: the rich and the poor. Both these classes are poor in health as proven by the fact they can't live without running back to the doctor for succor. The main topic of conversation amongst clusters of these two groups is "how sick THE DOCTOR SAYS I am."

Everywhere we look America is now confronted with a vast array of ever more drug-dependent citizens. How often do you see anyone being treated regularly by the system who isn't taking any drugs at all? I'll venture you don't know one single person to fit that description. In fact, those taking just one drug are definitely in the minority of your experience, right?  

In point of fact, most patients relying on the modern health care system have been convinced they require FOUR different drugs to keep them alive. At least one of those drugs is very EXPENSIVE. 

Yet, as a group, doctors can't even collectively agree that it is good -- or bad -- that the normal body excretes salt when it exercises. When doctors ask themselves which is better -- 1: to replace the salt lost because its presence in the body is essential, or -- 2: to cheer the elimination of a substance so dangerous from the patient's body -- they cannot agree on the answer amongst themselves. 

Doctors are clearly divided on the efficacy of even this elemental process, so how can we trust them implicitly with more complicated matters, like the necessity of an expensive tonsillectomy? 

Oh, I agree the tonsillectomy itself is usually a success, but was the operation actually necessary?  Did it actually help the patient? That's the question doctors can't offer an opinion on that all of them agree with. 

Why then are we so willing to give doctors carte blanche in deciding how many drugs we must take, how many operations are necessary or how much treatment is required?  We can expect the same result from this approach as telling Congress to spend all our money it can find a use for.  

Do we really want a free medical program
for everyone and not just for the poor?

Well, we already have a free medical system for everyone.  
It is called the Veterans Administration Hospital.

Virtually anyone who has served our nation in uniform is provided with free treatment for virtually anything wrong with them.  I cannot imagine any government agency working more effectively or more efficiently than the VA Hospital. 

Obviously the cleanest solution to this problem is to reinstate the draft and call up EVERYONE to serve for a minimum term upon reaching the age of 19.  Conscientious Objectors can run to Canada, or run for President.

the end

There are MORE  Hand-Picked Essays
in the following categories

Personal  *  Family  *  Inspirational  *  Helpful  *  War  *    Freedom  *  Money  *  

Click HERE to read our latest news.

We want MORE Essays.  The writing inside the essays accepted here must be of superior quality.  The topics must be either timely or enduring in nature.  If you can pass that hurdle, your tightly written essays with strong values will be published here free of charge.  A link back to your home page, or to your email address will be provided inside your byline, IF you want it.

Check out our whole site with one click..

  Web http://www.talewins.com