Saturday, September 5, 2009

Pre-Existing Conditions

Every [otherwise sane] person I speak to about the coming health-care takeover who is still in favor of it comes down to the same argument - someone [they are related to] has a pre-existing medical condition (generally diabetes, but not always) and cannot get affordable [read as cheap] insurance.

Skipping for a moment the observation that after an accident is not when you would buy car insurance, and presume that there is some kind of societal need to provide for diabetics. What obligation would we have? The need for catastrophic treatment? Heart failure. Reasonable, but every hospital will not turn you away and will treat that without insurance now. Kidney failure and dialysis? Seems like a reasonable request. Very expensive and labor intensive on the part of medical personnel. Insulin? What responsibility do people have in there own care and life? None????

But more important, if our biggest need is to cover people whose care is more than any reasonable person can afford to care for, why is it necessary to destroy everyone else's health care system to allow for the coverage of these people? And especially, why is it necessary to destroy a healthcare system that at least 82% of the population is happy with - to enable coverage of the other uninsureds, people who have better things to do with their money instead of buying insurance. Things like buying a 52" flat screen TV and a high-end new car? And why are we covering people who are not even supposed to be in this country anyway? (especially if their country is one of those model countries whose health care system is so wonderful - send them home for treatment)
As a society, we can see the need to cover the old and very young. Perhaps covering or subsidizing diabetics, catastrophic diseases and the like might be justifiable, but at what cost to the rest of us? Our own health?

No comments: