I am going to do a brief series about health care (again), and I consider last week the first in that series. I want to evaluate the claim which was a fixture of the McCain campaign and has since become a talking point on Fox News: “The USA has the best health care system in the world.”
The question is, what is the evidence for this claim? I have never heard them quote any statistics in support, nor could I find any on the internet. I have two guesses about the popularity of that quote. The first is that we Americans love to tell ourselves that we are the best. In everything. And so I assume that the phrase in question resonates well. The second is that even though there is no statistical support for this claim, there is some anecdotal evidence. The fact is that when rich foreigners need surgery, they tend to fly in to the good ole USA. So doesn’t that mean that we have the best health care system in the world?
The answer is yes – unless you are a Christian. One thing about Christians is our upside-down value system. Instead of valuing the great, powerful , and rich, Jesus told us that the weak, meek, and poor are the ones who are really well off. For those with money, this is indeed the best health care system in the world. That must be why the rich fly to America for surgery. But if you are a ‘have-not,’ this is the worst (37th) of all the first world countries. In America, money leads to health, and poverty leads to sickness. And no, the good health care does not ‘trickle down.’ If such a thing happened, it already would have. America’s health care system has already been tested, and found to be wildly successful for the rich, and neglectful of the poor. And that gap only appears to be widening with time.
So if you insist that America has the best health care system in the world, what do you mean? Which people do you include in your calculus?
8.31.2009
8.25.2009
Puttin Granny to Death
I don’t want to waste words talking about the hypocrisy and stupidity of the Palin/Gingrich ‘death panel’ world. Obama’s proposed legislation is not about death panels, but about paying for doctor consultations about end of life decisions. For example, you must decide in advance if you want to be resuscitated if you are merely going to live a few more painful months hooked up to a ventilator. When thy meet their maker, Palin and Gingrich will have to explain why they choose to scare old people and make their lives worse in order to score cheap political points.
But let’s leave the actual proposed legislation aside. Instead, let’s pretend that we live in a world where Palin’s worst nightmares came true, and there were a death panel: a group of doctors and politicians that decided whether someone deserved further treatment. Would that be immoral?
Two things must be pointed put. First, there already is a ‘death panel’ of sorts. It doesn’t involve beaurocrats or doctors, though; it involves money. If you have enough money, you can get your hip replaced when you’re 100. But if your mom doesn’t have money, she can’t take you to the doctor to screened for basic diseases when you’re a baby (actually, since Bush and the Republicans lost their ‘fight’ to the Democrats, free health insurance has been extended to poor children). A politician shouldn’t make health care decisions, but that seems no better than letting money decide.
Second, the euthanasia scare glosses over the incredibly important distinction between active and passive euthanasia. I think active euthanasia in all its form is immoral. That’s why I have a moral objection to abortion. But passive euthanasia is something vastly different. The question is, when an old person with asthma is being kept alive by a breathing machine, why are they alive? Is that the will of God? It is not. It is because medical technology has advanced to such a state that keeping them alive is possible. So is ‘pulling the plug’ immoral? The question is, why were they ‘plugged in’ in the first place?
Passive euthanasia just doesn’t bother me at all. When I am old, I would rather have God decide when I take my last breath – not a doctor or an insurance adjustor. Active euthanasia is completely different. That is what is immoral and deserves condemnation from Christians.
But let’s leave the actual proposed legislation aside. Instead, let’s pretend that we live in a world where Palin’s worst nightmares came true, and there were a death panel: a group of doctors and politicians that decided whether someone deserved further treatment. Would that be immoral?
Two things must be pointed put. First, there already is a ‘death panel’ of sorts. It doesn’t involve beaurocrats or doctors, though; it involves money. If you have enough money, you can get your hip replaced when you’re 100. But if your mom doesn’t have money, she can’t take you to the doctor to screened for basic diseases when you’re a baby (actually, since Bush and the Republicans lost their ‘fight’ to the Democrats, free health insurance has been extended to poor children). A politician shouldn’t make health care decisions, but that seems no better than letting money decide.
Second, the euthanasia scare glosses over the incredibly important distinction between active and passive euthanasia. I think active euthanasia in all its form is immoral. That’s why I have a moral objection to abortion. But passive euthanasia is something vastly different. The question is, when an old person with asthma is being kept alive by a breathing machine, why are they alive? Is that the will of God? It is not. It is because medical technology has advanced to such a state that keeping them alive is possible. So is ‘pulling the plug’ immoral? The question is, why were they ‘plugged in’ in the first place?
Passive euthanasia just doesn’t bother me at all. When I am old, I would rather have God decide when I take my last breath – not a doctor or an insurance adjustor. Active euthanasia is completely different. That is what is immoral and deserves condemnation from Christians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)