I have to preface this entry with the fact that I feel like the entire discussion of whether or not healthcare currently is fair or unfair, good or bad, positive or negative, is ultimately another back-stabbing American game of "I got mine, go get your own." Let's stop pretending that healthcare in the US is not a catastrophe, that it actually extends quality care to all people, that it is better to make a non-choice for-profit, etc. That's where I stand, and that's where anyone with half a mind to LOOK AT THE DATA should be standing. We cannot afford to have a for-profit/non-profit debate any longer. It's not the right direction, for the nation, and on an individual level. We have to throw out the idea that NOT nationalizing care is even an option and we need to start (have started) figuring out HOW we're going to nationalize, and do it fast enough to not bankrupt the country. Healthcare is a CRISIS, a TRAVESTY, and it is shameful and a poor mark on our nation's level of discourse that we aren't able to see the forest for the trees and get work done towards a healthy solution.
Hospital Mergers: Who Does it Help?
Well, who are we supposed to think it helps? I guess it's probably benefiting those poor communities that ONLY had non-profit care providers. Oh, wait, it's going to reduce competition?! And possibly cost communities MORE?!! Bummer. Who could have seen this coming?
Hate-ridden sarcasm aside, it seems clear that the acquisition of hospitals is part of a business transaction, one of the many for-profit companies and corporations make all the time. It's telling that non-profits are more likely to take on the relatively low-profit sectors of healthcare: rehab, burn care, trauma, etc, etc, and that for profits are less likely. This is jus good business sense--reduce your risk of losing profit and invest in high end things that generate huge returns. Rake it in. Buy the best locations to get the most money. The interests of business cannot serve the interests of the people in healthcare because business and profit-making is all about MONEY. Healthcare is about NEED, meaning that there just isn't any way ofttimes for the most needy people to get services because they don't have the finances to do so.
"The Value of Non-profits" and O'Neill's CH.5 Both really lay out the compelling arguements FOR a not-for-profit system, that on an individual level, care is better, and that admin costs could be lower if we just reduced the amount of bureaucratic nonsense that goes on in healthcare. Who can disagree based on anything but some force-fed notion of what a half-witted group of greedy shortsighted profiteers? I'm not sure. But the problem is institutionalized.
Speaking of institutionalized, in the reading about the GB Packers, isn't it odd that they alone CAN be nonprofit? "No, this won't work for anyone but THOSE guys, and they have to keep mum about it.
And my final point: a great shame and a great success. ADD is now almost designer. True, the acceptance, readily, unthinkingly, of medicating everyone MAY have had a positive influence on some level to help society come to terms with the reality and normalcy of mental illness, but the horror here is that we are equally willing to medicate people for ANY sort of emotional issues, and it only funnels money into a profit-based industry that is CLEARLY interested in marketing to and expanding their base. What happens as a result of giving a kid 100g. of sugar and sending them to class is not the same as a true medical imbalance and inability to focus, and it is disingenuous to treat it as such. We are not, for reasons of ease and profit, looking at whether or not it is SAFE to market pharmaceuticals.
Health is a different thing than is a purchase. No matter whether you live in a chateau or your car, you WILL need health services. Every day, your body requires certain things and encounters different pressures, and you WILL have some health problem. It isn't entirely a choice, and it's cruel to treat it as such, and to not stop there, but to say that it is a luxury item.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
When has the US ever really looked to see if it's safe to market pharmaceuticals? I know there's the FDA and the process there - but as with any product out there - we have risks and small print and black box warnings.
The same goes for any product. Look at the little sticker on a kid's car seat. Look at the sticker on a box of legos, or look at the box warning on a pack of cigarettes.
I, for one, am not appalled by the "fad" of ADD. This is nothing new in the United States. Sooner than later the flavor will change and it will be something else. In the mean time, the people at large get to make their own decisions and get to live with their own consequences.
I was a little annoyed at the idea that there can only be one nonprofit... that seems a little short sighted? Why should the NFL get to make that decision for the communities at large? Who does it benefit? I wonder what is scary about it that someone decided to make that a rule in the first place. There had to be a genuine fear of something, other than JUST the profits of the industry... or that could just be my naivete talking.
That is the crux of the problem. We as a country have not established if health care is a right or a luxury. In reality it is neither. It is a necessity. Sick people don't work or go to school. We are paying for those who can't anyway in higher premiums, blah blah. Everyone knows this. How did Social Security happen? How did Medicare happen? These were sudden, bold changes implemented without a thousand polls and pundits. Did anyone try to repeal those laws? Why? Because then we had a solid middle who understood real values. They just wanted a decent job with decent pay and to make life better for their children. I wish I could be more optimistic.
It's easier to argue about the things that we already have. The opening paragraphs of your entry are very true. Things that we taken for granted and accept regularly today were considered extreme when they first came out. Time is the solution to everything. Unfortunately, some things can't be waited on.
So I fully understand your argument for the nationalization of health care, but do you believe that it is truly plausible? Obama-care continually receives negative feedback, and the non-profit hospitals are operating in the red. It would seem that the only short-term solution is for non-profit hospitals to be purchased by businesses. I know that your argument is for the long-term solution, but do you think the current system will survive until there is a national consensus for nationalized health care?
Post a Comment