Tuesday, September 17, 2013

IMHO: Healthcare discussion

This is not a political blog, nor do I wish it to be.  I do, however, have some thoughts I'd like people to consider as they wade into the healthcare debate:

Some things to consider:

You may say you're healthy - but you can be a carrier for a number of illnesses and never once have a symptom yourself. Should you be charged for making others sick?

You may also have genetics that have disorders that are unknown (my brother was the first hemophiliac in my family to anyone living's knowledge) that may bring forth a child with medical needs for their entire life. Should that child pay more because you didn't know your entire DNA history before reproducing?

There are a number of single parents for various reasons whose children grow up to be adults without familial monies supporting them. As young adults attempting to start work or school, they may be hit by a car, slip on ice or catch a cold - is it then "natural selection" for them because they don't have the ready funds to pay for those situations?

No one wants to pay more - but we all have to pay what is necessary as a society.  I drive a hybrid car - I use less gasoline than most.  Why should I pay for the overconsumption of others making gas such a "precious commodity?  Because I use public transportation, airplanes and other things that consume gas.  Do I think the cost is ridiculous, sure, but until pressure is put to bear in that market - that industry calls the shots.  When they risk losing more customers than keeping them - things may change.   

As a society, we sometimes share certain burdens.  The prevention of the spread of illness (see: Black Plague) is worth the investment.  Much like the upkeep of the physical infrastructure to prevent people from falling to bodies of water because the bridge or roadway falls apart.  If I didn't drive, could I be annoyed for every taxpayer dollar that goes to improve roads I never use.

Also, as many markets prove - premiums can rise for a minute but when people stop using them because they are too costly and can't compete - they have to come down.  I feel like currently the housing market and the banking industries are prime examples of forcible change to prevent going out of business altogether.  It may seem very Walmart, but in every industry - there is always someone who can lowball you to keep the prices competitive and affordable.

In this situation, the federal government has created the healthcare Walmart. In my mind, this means there is no longer a private monopoly on a necessary function.  Does it mean there will be complaining and difficulty in implementation - sure.  Walmart is accused on the regular of driving small businesses out of communities, but in exchange they make things affordable for the masses.  You can still go to your specialty shops, organic stores, and hand-woven boutiques - but the regular person can also eat, clothe, and purchase for themselves - at a price that keeps the majority from overpaying. 

As for the new healthcare, I will never probably need to use it in the near-term, because my family makes too much money and have insurance through employment - but I'm sure someone I know or care about will. And that's worth it to me.

No comments: