A year ago I posted some thoughts on health care, copied below, after watching a 60 Minutes segment on a medical organization called Remote Area Medical (RAM). RAM, and their methods, are in the news again because of the federal government's health insurance initiatives.
I am not opposed to a "nationally governed" health care system because it is inherently wrong, but because it is inherently cumbersome, restrictive, and expensive. And I emphasize "inherently". The regulation of any such enterprise from a central location is a beast that no one will control. Imagine General Motors at its most bloated, times 10. The effect of more and more statutory law is always less and less justice. If a national health policy is the
only way to accomplish the goal of health care for everyone then we are a nation on the downward slope of good health.
The post from a year ago on the organization
Remote Area Medical. (RAM):
--------------------------------------------
In political discourse, it is called
framing the debate.
Example: 90 years ago, Congress was debating whether or not to install a national income tax. Today, we have the
Federal Income Tax, and no Congressional debates on whether we
need an income tax, just
how much we should pay. That debate has been framed.
Health care funding, on the other hand, is a very current debate. After watching the CBS 60 Minutes segment on an organization named
, Remote Area Medical (RAM), I think someone should ask another question. I wish someone would re-frame the debate.
RAM goes to remote areas of the world to provide desperately needed health care. A few years ago they took the idea
local and brought the services to parts of the USA. Hundreds of medical professionals, from dentists to surgeons, met in Tennessee somewhere for a one-day, free service to all comers. The physicians and nurses were doing something they love for people who needed it -- and appreciated it (the report is very clear on this point, see link below).
What does this have to do with a debate? Organizations like RAM are filling a void that should not exist. And it makes me wonder if all of us wouldn't be better off by eliminating the pounds of paperwork and constant threat of medical malpractice, like RAM does on their missions. Why can't we go back to simpler system where an MD is concerned more with the patient's health, than with paperwork and litigation? If the professionals working with RAM could provide care that way, there, why not in their home office?
Am I being naive? Probably.
But I go back to the title of this post, what damage have we done by allowing medical lawsuits and burdensome paperwork ruin common medical care?
We
will have a national healthcare system in the next 5 years -- which reminds me of an old Roman political maxim:
the loss of personal and civic virtue ushers in decadence, usurpation follows in the name of order.
We live in the American age of centralized government usurpation. It will get worse.
-------------------------------
CBS 60 Minutes report on RAM:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/28/60minutes/main3889496.shtml
-----------------------------------------------
(FINAL NOTE: I was wrong about one thing. I said we will have a national health policy in 5 years. We will have it in a year or two.)