Quote:
Originally Posted by villagerjack
Both are broke meaning they have NO MONEY!
|
First, kudos to BKC for doing the research and providing food for thought for us all. Many of the facts listed are meaningful.
A quick response regarding the financial condition of the Social Security and Medicare systems. When Social Security was signed into law in 1935, the average lifespan of Americans was probably 15 years shorter than it is today. Similarly, when Medicare was enacted in 1965, there was probably no way that the Congress could anticipate that healthcare would have to be provided to people for many more years than they were living at that time. Of course both programs are "broke". Even if our politicians hadn't invaded the trust funds prescribed to fund these programs to pay for current government spending, both programs would still be broke. What's almost criminal is the ignorance of Congresses for decades in ignoring the increasingly desperate need to to restructure these programs and provide for financing more in line with current life expectancies and levels of health. Critics can blame "government" for mismanaging Social Security and Medicare, but the most egregious mismanagement has been ignoring the problems associated with them as those problems became increasingly evident.
However, I still am of the belief that our healthcare system absolutely needs reforms, some of which began with the passage of the healthcare bill. The facts that are the basis for my conclusion are as follows...
- The amount of money we spend on healthcare, currently measured as about 16-17% of our GDP, is almost double that of the next country included in any such listing.
- The increases in our healthcare expenditures and the costs borne by individual citizens are growing at a rate that virtually everyone agrees is unsustainable and unaffordable for a growing number of Americans every day, every week and every month.
- Notwithstanding the skill and creativity of our medical professionals, drug makers and medical device manufacturers, the average life expectancy and infant mortality rates of Americans are well below many countries in the developed world.
Our individual viewpoints regarding the adequacy of our healthcare system seems to be driven by the "haves" versus the "have nots".
If one were to measure the costs and results of healthcare among those Americans who have insurance and access to healthcare, I suspect their statistics would be measurably better than other citizens not so blessed with both financial resources and access.
In debates such as occur on this forum, it's the "haves" who are arguing that our system is OK and the type of legislation enacted early this week was unnecessary. Those who can't afford insurance, are reliant only on ER care when they get sick, or who have had family members or friends die because they had no access to the same type of care so readily available to the haves in our society would certainly have a differing view.
The various studies and statistics capture the
average condition of our healthcare system, not the situation that the haves enjoy. That is, all except one glaring statistic. That's the unsustainable escalation of the total cost of healthcare that seems to result from the average poor health and the costs associated with treatment only of advanced medical conditions and virtually no preventive care being experienced by the have nots.
So I guess the way I'm interpreting the statistics available is that we--the haves--really had to do something to protect ourselves from having the escalating costs resultant from the much sicker have nots from dragging our own healthcare down closer to the lower level and higher cost resultant from the care available to the have nots.
Am I saying that is my only reason for supporting healthcare reform? No. I also believe that every citizen of the U.S. has the right to an adequate level of healthcare. If we want to count ourselves as a civil society, I think that's a fundamental requirement.
So, my support of this initial step of healthcare reform--and I do mean an
initial step because of the weaknesses in the bill--is based both on my desire to protect my own healthcare from being eroded as the result of the costs and health associtaed with the have nots. But also simply because I want to call myself a member of a society which has some basic and fundamental beliefs regarding the well-being of all its citizens.
I know I probably won't convince others who do not share my beliefs. That's OK with me. I am willing to agree to disagree. But I'd surely like to do so without being disagreeable. That's something that seems sorely missing, both here on this forum, but also among our politicians. And that's too bad.