Let's take the politics out of this discussion. No Republicans,
Democrats, Libertarians or Socialists. No Truthers, Birther's or any other Social or Political group or icon.
Let's also take out personalities: Don't like Palin? Swell; Think Obama is evil incarnate? Great! Let's couch our American Idol meets Survivor mentality, stop demonizing and vilifying individuals and segments of America. It detracts from the issues at hand; the most topical of which is Universal Health Care.
First off, let's make this clear: Universal Health Care isn't the President's plan. In all fairness, the President has not endorsed anything beyond the broad stroke of "reform". It reminds me of the line in the movie "O'Brother" where the Governors idiot son says "Maybe we should get us some of that reform" but, I digress.
In our land of equality, people wrongly assume that once there is Universal Healthcare, everyone will be entitled to equal care and the bad old days will be over.
Sadly, Universal Health care really isn't Universally equal, It's more like Universal Animal Farm Health Care, where all patients are equal, but some are more equal than others.
The hyperlink listed below highlights one of Dr. Emanuel's writings as well as his original piece (in .PDF) as originally published. While the analysis is on a rather Conservative blog, please don't let the messenger (or the man/example) distract you from the actual issue:
http://blog.jonolan.net/politics/complete-lives-system/
Should this become policy, a child with Autism that is found to have a tumor, doesn't get to have it removed as he isn't going to be a contributing member of society.
"When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated."
Moving on, most will agree that, prevention and treatment go hand in hand; this often leads to taxation of items that are deemed contrary to public health. For the sake of example we can look at the near endless parade of cigarette taxes or more specifically, Oregon's recent "Sin Tax" proposal; a 1900% beer tax: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/16/oregon-beer-tax-of-1900-p_n_167318.html Again, just because it's on a partisan site, don't allow the source to distract from the content. Even if you aren't a smoker or beer drinker, it's likely some sin tax would impact your pocketbook. To paraphrase Adam Ant - Don't Drink, Don't Smoke, Ok, What do you do? Ride a motorcycle? Oh, risky! Tax it! Engage in behavior that statistically puts you at a higher risk for infectious diseases? Tax Maximus, Astroglide and other specialty personal lubricants! You know, now that I look at you, those extra pounds you're wearing are probably not good for you either, better tax fast food, beef, dairy and sugars; maybe simply tax plus sizes or better yet, do both to help supplement the added cost it takes to care for your lifestyle.
Finally, we get down to projecting the natural evolution of the weighted metrics used to dole out the varying "levels of Universal but not equal Healthcare".
There's always the natural increase in overhead and cost that has to be dealt with and historically, when has the Government ever done with less (long term) and not increased its operative budget?
It's safe to forecast that there will come a point where taxation isn't enough and added measures have to be enacted.
Whereas previously the Gov't used to tax your (potentially health impacting) behavior, now the Gov't (to maintain Universal Care) is forced to consider your high risk status in regards to the level of treatment you are "entitled" to receive; thereby creating a longer que where the cost is incurred at a slower pace and a certain percentage of patients die prior to treatment.
In such a environment, It's not unreasonable to extrapolate a scenario in which the Govt assigns a homosexual man in need of treatment for AIDS a more restrictive treatment schedule than a heterosexual man that contracted AIDS from drug abuse! (See CDC report below notating AIDS was contracted by homosexual men at a rate in excess of 6 fold over men that contracted AIDS through injection drug use)
Now, you might not be a homosexual man in need of treatment for AIDS, but like before, odds are there's something you do that's contrary to your optimum health. Eventually, with Universal Care, your guilty pleasures will no longer be about helmet laws, cancer warnings or sin taxes impacting your pocketbook, its how soon and what type of treatment you or your loved ones will receive.
We've all heard Jefferson's quote "A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have." In this case, the government that's big enough to supply you with everything you need, is also the one that decides if you really need it and when you might get it!
Updated(David Scott):
in an exclusive on Hot Air, Fred Thompson chimes in on the end of life provision and why it was and still should be a valid concern for all of us.
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (3)
Subscribe to this comment's feedThank
Jim
-
- +0
-
-
