For the next few weeks I'll be posting on the Health Care Bill that recently passed both Houses and landed on the President's desk. I'm trying to understand exactly what happened, therefore I've decided (under some urging) to do some research and interpret the information back into words. This will be disorganized, chaotic, meandering and full of opinion and my flaws. I make no apologies and I have no real opinion on the matter - I'm far too ignorant. So if at a certain point in these following posts I seem leaning to one corner, I apologize. Hang tight and I'm quite sure in the next post I'll be viewing things from a different perspective.
Part I
Despite the health care debate monopolizing much of the airwaves for the past eight months and every media outlet having numerous opinions on its effects, I’m still confused as hell. I feel like I just woke up in an alley with blood on my jeans, no shoes and wearing someone stranger’s toupee – what the hell just happened and how is this going to change my life?
I’m not smart; I’m not that well-informed; I’m not a doctor and I can barely count to ten let alone calculate budgetary estimations, but when has an inherent deficiency ever stopped me from playing the expert before? So in the next few posts I’m going to try and make sense of the health care reform, sifting through the partisanship surrounding it and what exactly it means for us.
First off I think it’d be necessary to look at the health care system prior to this bill, focusing in particular on the twin monstrosities of Medicaid and Medicare, as well as the state of the uninsured in America. This is essential to understand the Bill just signed into law by Obama and the political turmoil surrounding it. It will also do a lot to deflate the sentiment that the Federal Government should keep their hands out of the public health sector – a sentiment in my opinion that is ridiculous considering our history (you’ll see what I mean).
Brief History of the Federal Government’s sticky hand in Health Care:
Think of the most badass President – be quick. Don’t wait. Just blurt it out! If you said Jimmy Carter, you’re a dumb ass; if you said Ronald Reagan, you’ve been drinking the Kool-Aid; if you said Truman or Ike, I’ll let it slide but you’re still wrong. The correct answer and most badass Prez by far is Teddy Roosevelt. In a full-on death match, I’d take TR against a tiger.
And it’s surprising to note that this mustachioed man-bear of a President campaigned under the Bull Moose Party for health care way back in 1912. That’s right, in between hunting big game and getting shot TR was a proponent of social welfare. TR lost his presidential crusade in ’12 to the sniveling douche bag Woodrow Wilson, but the notion of universal health care was far from lost.
Labor Unions and Consolidated groups of the elderly have consistently pushed the Federal and State governments to guarantee health care for their members, trying a variety of shared-cost initiatives throughout the years. Much of these initiatives fell flat, primarily due to lack of a concerted effort by reformers and the opposition by special interests groups (sounds familiar). Despite the laudatory efforts of reformers, the fact that beer became outlawed during this era makes the entire Progressive Movement the work of a bunch of teetotaler in my opinion. The fact that health care reformists were not connected with abolitionists means nothing to me – I’ve never been restricted by facts or common sense.
On a side note, it was right around this time that the opponents of government run health care came up with the notion of “socialized medicine”; it’s important to remember that this was during an era of intense backlash against anything seen as socialist or the even more vile communist (Look up Palmer Raids in your free time). Anything connected with “Socialism” was anathema to most Americans.
Next Post:
The Great Depression to Medicaid
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Health Care: Part I
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Interesting. Makes me wonder what healthcare was like in the 16,17,1800's ... were people just BETTER to each other? Obviously healthcare itself was far from sophisticated .. but what care there was, was it offered to all? I refuse to believe that it is not in human nature to help others. Even today! I mean, what doctor won't treat someone, in front of them, who is hurt or dying, if they can? Why can't that translate to politics?
People just died sooner by things today that we'd consider trivial. Plus, in the colonial and frontier era, capitalism didn't completely take root quite yet. The barter system was well alive - only later did work translate exclusively into currency. There used to be a time when one person could trade work for work directly. So a farmer could offer a product of his land in exchange for medical help.
But the vast majority of people living in the earlier days did not have access to health care as we consider it today. We are spoiled people, let's not be fooled.
Plus, people are still treated in the U.S. without health care. If you do not have health insurance and are in a car accident, you will be treated in the emergency room regardless. It's the law and any doctor who refuses to treat a patient betrays the Hippocractic Oath and will be held accountable in court.
But to answer your larger point - I think most people are inherently good. We're also inherently dumb and oblivious. I think most of the discourteous behavior by people is done unintentionally - just flawed people banging into each other.
Post a Comment