Healthcare and Freedom Rant, pt. 1

The following is what is commonly called ‘a rant,’ and should be taken as such. It may contain many truths but also many exaggerations. — The Editor

On of the arguments we frequently hear in the current debate about healthcare is that of choice and freedom. We seem rather confused about the exact meaning of these words as they apply to health care, however. FDR and a progressive would view healthcare “freedom” as access and treatment for all; while a more traditional use would mean one has the right, according to his ability, to seek the best treatment available. Complicating the discussion is the traditional, near sacred view we give to the practice of medicine. A doctor’s first duty is “to do no harm,”  with the doctor bearing a moral obligation the doctor-patient relationship is granted a special place of privacy and trust within society and law.

Consider how in this normally works: a patient has a problem, and goes to his doctor seeking advice. The doctor, taking the entire situation into consideration, advises the best course of treatment. The patient receives this treatment and pays the doctor back as he is able–in the history books, many times that was in chickens, eggs or some other commodity rather than cash. The doctor has always preformed charity work, but has always been well paid as well. In modern times the landscape is quite different. The doctor still sees the patient and advises treatment, many times involving modern technologies and methods that he himself does not oversee. Marvelous as technology and modern medicine is, the costs associated with involving multiple layers of treatment–physician, x-ray, technicians, lab tests, advanced drugs and so forth–is fairly large. Fundamental to our debate is the understanding that health care is expensive.

Since the 40s and 50s, we’ve developed  insurance plans, HMOs, shared-cost plans and other forms of spreading the cost that also add several layers of cost and bureaucracy to the final bill. A visit to my doctor may only cost me a $20 co-pay, but my doctor has to submit a claim which must be reviewed by an insurance company which must write a check to pay my doctor for services I received. Meanwhile, I and my fellow insurance plan members are paying into a giant bucket of money that is being spread around to cover the various doctor bills each of us accrue. Currently employers subsidize much of this cost, helping to hide the true cost of a doctors visit or surgery.

Now is a system like this free choice? Many would say yes, but realize that ultimately the insurance company is calling the shots on your treatment so as not to bankrupt itself and its members. Cancer patients usually find this out when they hit the $50,000 or $100,000 cap on treatment many companies impose. I’m not bashing the companies for being heartless, they have to make their ends meet and provide the best standard of care they can to all. I am saying that insurance is not a means of treatment, but merely a cost-sharing mechanism within a certain group of people. When everyone uses it too much, however, the system breaks down. And when a single night in the hospital can cost upwards of $1000, even the little things can easily break the bank.

Healthcare costs are out of control, and the current “system” of third party payments cannot bear the rising costs much longer. As babyboomers retire, reducing the ratio of worker to beneficiary to nearly 2:1 levels, something has to give before doctors stop practicing and hospitals close down. The problem is that it takes money–and lots of it–to have true freedom in health care. People who say they merely want to keep their current plan or doctor are right to want that–but they cannot expect someone else to pay for it. The careful balance of the past that gave relative freedom and choice along with lower costs won’t last much longer.

There are lots of things that can be changed. Medical providers can reduce costs, simplify their payment structure, medical malpractice tort laws (“lawyer enrichment”) can be severely curtailed, bureaucratic paper work can be cut down, people can live healthier. But health care is fundamentally expensive, and if you want true “healthcare freedom” you need to either pay for it yourself or have a completely subsidized and generously funded state-system of doctors and hospitals that treats all regardless of condition or practicality. Neither is likely to be fully the case, but I’d prefer a system where I maintain the responsibility of decisions and costs over a government system hamstringed unsupportable burdens. The traditional practice of medicine left few untreated, perhaps we should stop seeking a system and instead turn responsibility back over to those who know best how to use it.

Sanford & the GOP

I, like many people, was shocked and saddened to hear of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford’s affair. The pain and sorrow he and his entire family are experiencing deserve the sympathy of all Americans. But I also found myself incredibly angry, not only with Governor Sanford but also with a party and officials who constantly fail personally and politically. Mark Sanford is merely the latest in a string of personal scandals for Republicans beginning with Congressman Mark Foley (anybody remember him?).

The issue at stake is credibility, and Republicans have successfully proven within my young memory that they have none to offer. The sweep of the 1994 elections (the year Mark Sanford was first elected to Congress) and the Contract with America was supposed to continue Reagan era and lead us back towards limited government and personal freedoms. Instead, fed by a booming economy and an amiable President Clinton, Republicans quickly lost focus and will, collapsing into gridlock after Newt Gingrich’s own extra-martial affair. The election of George W. Bush, whom I admire and respect on many levels, continued a bloated conservatism that trampled on the ideas of fiscal conservatism, small government and personal responsibility. The world certainly changed on September 11th, but conservative ideals did not. But rather than adapt to a new world of terrorism and para-state politics, the Republican party largely abandoned any idea of principles and became a softer form of the Democratic opposition.

Having proved our indifference in politics, Republicans attempted to returned to moral high ground by carrying elections on appeals to Evangelical Christians and the broader “Christian Coalition.” This too, was a mistake, for the Christian Coalition (as an organization and movement) lost much of its potency in the 1990s as Americans not only turned away from religion, but from scandal-ridden preacher demagogues. Even as someone raised within the “Christian Right,” I am horrified by the blatant attempts to associate the Republican party with the idea of a Christian America. Especially when those claiming “moral values” fail to live up to them.

All men stumble and fail, and all may receive forgiveness from God and their fellow man. But politically, Republicans have reached the end of the rope. We have exhausted every avenue of credibility we have—fiscally, individually and morally. We spend like mad men and then attack President Obama’s proposals as “irresponsible.” We proclaim personal freedom and responsibility and pass the PATRIOT Act and authorize TARP funds. We proclaim family and marriage only to leave our wives for other women. Why should anyone trust us?

Ever since the 2000 Election the GOP has suffered from a leadership vacuum. Many have attempted to fill it, all have failed. Some, such as Senator Ensign or Governor Sanford, were considered front-runners to lead the GOP and even as candidates in the 2012 elections. But as the last weeks have shown, neither are up to the calling; and few are in line to replace them. Things have gotten so bad we have attempted to resurrect Newt Gingrich to lead a clarion call of conservatism—but who can forget his own past failings? Those who say the GOP just needs to “stick to its principles” over-simplify things, but are correct that principles are only worth the weight you personally put in them.

Republicans need to clean house, if there is any house left standing to clean. I believe in forgiveness, but forgiveness does not mean a future in politics. Governor Sanford should resign, as should Senator Ensign. To put it bluntly: our party has no room for liars, adulators or hypocrites. There can be no more “rehabilitation” or return for them to elected office. Their opportunity came and they squandered it and the name of the party in the process. A party that is struggling to focus its message and restore its brand—as the GOP should be doing—cannot tolerate any deviation from the key planks, as Senator Ensign and Governor Sanford have clearly done. Unfortunately, the existing party leadership and roster of elected officials offers few options to replace them. Massive reforms, energy and focus are needed if the GOP is to survive, and new leaders must be cultivated and launched to ensure the party’s future. If not, we deserve to die as a failure of the political free market.

Thou Shall Not Murder

Yesterday’s news of the death of prominent abortionist Dr. George Tiller at the hands of a gunman has produced a firestorm of criticism for pro-life groups and other “right wingers” whose language against abortion many blame for encouraging violence against Doctors as Dr. Tiller. While it is true that there have been a series of unfortunate attacks on abortion doctors in the past, such actions are hardly characteristic of the pro-life movement as a whole. Critics point to the hypocrisy of murdering in the name of life, and they are right to do so.

Murder is murder–whether it be the shooting of a aged man or a yet-to-be-born infant.  To the Christian, both are created in the image of God, and both are worthy of protection as such. The only difference between them is that Dr. Tiller may be considered to have blood on his hands in the eyes of Christians–but not so in the eyes of law. The murder of innocents is what makes abortion so incredibly offense, yet is is only slightly worse that cold-blooded murder in a church foyer on Sunday morning. Murder is murder. Thus the men who (multiple) times have shot at Dr. Tiller, and in this final case killed him, are morally on the same ground as him–murderers.

The shooter yesterday paid no favors to anyone. He committed a crime as great as the one he thought he was stopping, he defamed and betrayed a movement and he put his own soul in peril. I will not be able to mourn Dr. Tiller, I admit–his actions and brutalities to thousands of innocent unborns only makes me pity his soul, and this is a fault on my part. He too, is a man, and anything that tiny reflection of God is destroyed, I must weep for my own, no matter how dirty or corrupted that picture may be. And so I mourn for mankind lost, I mourn the children lost, I mourn for the soul lost without repentence. Murder is destruction, and we cannot rejoice in its appearance.

In-State Tuition For Illegal Aliens

A proposal to grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants passed out of a Colorado state Senate committee this week. The bill passed 5-4 and now heads to the Senate floor.

According to the Washington Post Democrats have argued that the bill would have a positive effect on the state budget because more students would be attending state universities and thus paying tuition. Republicans counter that the state will lose money because those students would ordinarily be paying the higher out-of-state tuition rate.

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput suggests that, “Openness to immigrants is part of our national identity.” He goes on to note that, “Federal law mandates free public education K-12 for all young people in the United States regardless of their immigration status.” In essence, the Archbishop favors tuition breaks for children of illegal aliens because these kids are better off in a classroom than unsupervised on the streets.

Former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo argues that such tuition discounts is illegal because, among other things, well, the recipients are here illegally.

I’ll admit to being a bit upset about the whole thing. Our legislators are dealing with a $700 Million deficit, and serious cuts are about to be made to our state budget. There are many, many issues of extreme importance to be discussed and acted on. Giving illegal aliens a tuition discount seems not only odd – it also seems politically motivated. With the Dems in complete power here for the first time in many years, it appears they are willing to build a new base which includes illegals. After all, it isn’t a stretch to see that today’s tuition break could easily lead to tomorrow’s legislation giving illegal aliens the right to vote.

[Editor's note: The Colorado Senate rejected the bill Monday evening, while other states are reconsidering their own policies of granting instate tuition to illegal immigrants.]

Affirmative Sports

A brief observation with a humorous intent before the weekend, when I hope to actually finish a post about the “national energy crisis.” In the meantime however…

My brother (himself a basketball player) was watching the NBA finals this week, and I joined him briefly for part of the  second-to-last game. He made the observation that he had only seen “one white guy”  on the Boston Celtics team, “and he is Asian.” No, I don’t know if this is true or not, but I found it amusing that the Boston Celtics, named after the very white country of Ireland, have a team composed primarily of black players. In our modern higher education, this would be cause for affirmative action to even the playing field, to allow white students an opportunity to play. No such interest in feel-good lower doubler-standards exists in the sports world, where story after story will tell you that talent is the only currency required to succeed. If only we could be so consistent in all areas of our lives.