For those of us who experienced the 1960s and early 70s during our teen and young adult years, the mantra of tolerance and acceptance was part and parcel of our existence. I remember a poster hanging in my then girlfriend’s (now wife) room which read, “You go your way and I’ll go mine. And if we find each other, then it’s beautiful.” How poetic. John Lennon wrote “Live and Let Live.” The saying of the day was “Do Your Own Thing.”
Insidiously, we were being brainwashed into believing that nobody had the right to question the actions of another. People who chose to destroy their brains and bodies with mind altering drugs claimed that it was their choice. Young adults who decided to abandon the uptight Puritanical attitudes toward sex and turn their backs on the concept of sexual intercourse within the context of marriage, proclaimed that they didn’t want morality preached at them. Men who fathered children out of wedlock and women who decided to abort the unborn child shouted that the government had no right to legislate morality. As did the homosexuals grasping the opportunity to come out of the closet. There was, what seemed to be, a universal chorus, of angry and fighting mad activists demanding tolerance, acceptance, and acquiescence of their behaviors. Those who either didn’t agree, or were too slow in doing so, were shouted down as narrow-minded bigots who bred hatred and prejudice within society.
The next 30 years of including tolerance in the curricula of public schools, along with Hollywood spitting out a steady stream of amoral shows, provided the necessary generational attitude shift that brings us to our “high” standards of today. Health classes include anatomically correct models of vaginas, erect penis, and demonstrations for utilizing birth control. A guest speaker from Planned Parenthood presents the means for obtaining an abortion without ever explaining what the mechanics are, such as showing a fetus growing in the womb, or perhaps explaining how the unborn is burned, dissected, or has its head crushed. At break, students can walk down to the health center for pregnancy tests, condoms, etc. After school, the gay and lesbian club will meet. (I don’t think a heterosexual club would be allowed - too hateful.)
Oh, we have become so open-minded and tolerant. But it’s kind of screwy how selective our thought processes have become. We want an “anything goes” society, but can’t understand why health care is expensive.
When people overdose on drugs and don’t want anyone interferring with their choice, who is paying for the ambulance, the emergency room, the hospital staff, and their rehabilitation; do those druggies really have the health plans which pay for that cost? And if they do, does that person’s premium cover it, or do the other subscribers have to pony up more money to cover the irresponsible behavior of the druggy? If they don’t have insurance, and yet all the services are rendered anyway, do the doctors, nurses, clerical staff, maintenance people, etc just forego that portion of their paycheck, or does that cost get passed on to those who pay? And when the druggy gets fired and goes on unemployment, where is that money coming from? Or, if they opt for welfare and government subsidized health care, who pays for that?
When the drug users’ children have learning problems due to genetic problems from the parents drug use, and the schools are mandated to meet their needs, is the parent footing the bill for their choices? And if the children need pharmaceutical intervention for the learning problems, that money is coming from where?
For a long time, nobody was really allowed to bring up the fact that the rampant spread of HIV in this country was due to three main populations: homosexuals who had sexual heydays with multiple partners, IV drug users, and prostitutes. Nope, schools handled the epidemic as if married partners were just as at-risk as everybody else. Since HIV was a political bombshell, our country had to make sure that we didn’t “hate” those who had the disease. We had to go so far as to protect their privacy to the extent that most people in society are not allowed to know if another person has the disease or not - it’s confidential. But we do get to pay for the treatments. In 2006, a WebMD article stated that an average cost of treating HIV for 24 years (the increased life expectancy due to treatment) places the cost at $618,900. In that same year, the Center for Disease Control estimated that, in the United States, we have 1,106,400 HIV positive persons. That puts the cost at $684,750,960,000. (By the way, the LA Times reported, in April 2009, that by year the War in Iraq carried a price tag $694 billion.) Who’s paying for the cost of HIV treatment? Even if every single HIV patient paid for their health insurance (they don’t), they’d be paying only a fraction of the cost. (Right now, I sense some of you slipping back in to thinking that I must be a really hateful person, suggesting that perhaps treatment be withheld.)
No. I see a big difference between someone who is born with, or develops a disease they have absolutely no control over - like cancer, and a person who smokes their whole life, gets cancer, and then gets cadillac health care (not to mention, is allowed to sue the tobacco company). A person who participates in risky behaviors is taking a risk. From the 1960s on, we were taught or indoctrinated into believing that we had no right, as a society, to question the morality or choices of others. Results? Children born out of wedlock, abortions (and the right to public funding thereof), widespread drug abuse, drug babies, HIV, Hepatitis scares, drug wars on the borders and in the cities, television shows that are immoral or amoral, a medical system that has to treat everything under the sun or get sued, and an attitude that health care and insurance is expensive because of corporate greed.
Follow this: A man named Paul smokes marijuana because it is his life and nobody is going to tell him what’s right or wrong. Paul had a job, but it was boring, he showed up stoned, was inefficient and apathetic, and got fired. Paul now gets an unemployment check. Paul wants to have sex but not get married, because marriage is an outdated societal hang-up. One of Paul’s partners, a teenager who’s favorite television show is “The Secret Life of the American Teenager” gets pregnant. The teenage mother has to decide whether to have an abortion or carry the baby to term - both of which cost money. She carries the baby to term and keeps the infant. Paul and the girl get into a legal dispute over child support. The child grows up fatherless and the mother doesn’t have the energy or understanding to really discipline Paul’s son or the other children she has. The kid goes to school and is diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder, and put on some drugs. The school writes up an individual learning plan for the child and hires an learning disability assistant to track the kid around and help with the learning difficulties. About ten years later, Paul is having chest pains. His doctor misses a spot on his lungs - cancer. A personal injury lawyer hears about Paul and convinces Paul that the doctor should have caught this. They sue for malpractice, asking for $2 million - knowing the doctor’s insurer will want to settle this out of court, rather than have the clever lawyer trot the unemployed, cancer stricken father who has a son with learning problems, cough up blood in front of a jury. They settle for $1,000,000. Paul gets state assistance for cancer surgery and treatment.
Where is all this money coming from? Paul? His girlfriend? From what source is the school getting money? How about the hospital, and doctor? Where is the public health program getting their money for Paul’s “free” care? How does the insurance company come up with the $1,000,000 for the lawsuit? Why didn’t they just refuse to pay when the doctor wasn’t really involved in malpractice?
If you think this scenario is a stretch, ask people who work in the above mentioned fields - it’s not only common, it’s epidemic.
We don’t need public health care. If there is one thing that should be obvious to everybody, but isn’t, is this: nothing is free. There is no free health care. The more social programs we offer that appear to be free, the more people feel entitled to have it, with absolutely no strings attached. Look at the welfare program. Do you see that system as being a motivator to get back to work? Do food stamps encourage recipients to feel like they have received charity and should buy the absolute cheapest suitable nourishment?
Here’s an observation I’ve made that you may or may not agree with: The more a person has to pay out of their own pocket for something, the more careful they will be with the purchase. Conversely, the more the person sees the benefit or resource as being free and unattached to their own wallet, the more careless they will be with the resource. In my youth, when having medical insurance meant having major medical, we didn’t run to the doctor at the drop of a hat. Now, that a doctor’s visit means a minimal co-payment, frequency is up. And what of the people who don’t have to pay anything and still get public health? Well, ask the people in the profession. That group tends to be “frequent flyers”.
It’s easy to jump on large businesses, such as insurance companies, thinking they are the villain. I wonder how many people understand the theory of insurance. By design, insurance was not intended to cover all out-of-pocket costs. The concept of insurance was to provide protection from catastrophic loss. A sample group of 1000 pay premiums into a pool of money managed by an insurance company. If each insured contributes $1000 per year, the insurance company has $1,000,000 to pay for catastrophic losses for some of the insureds, minus the expenses incurred by the company. It is considered a REALLY good year, if an insurance company makes 2-3% profit after expenses. Profit does NOT go into the pockets of the employees or management; it is re-invested into the company’s investment portfolio, allowing them to diversify and provide more stability for their insureds. Insurance is NOT a savings plan. I’ve heard countless complaints of people saying, “I’ve paid insurance every year and never had a claim! Did I ever get any money back? No!” That money went to people who had catastrophic accidents, their home burned down, or they had an infant born with life threatening conditions. If you and I didn’t get the money back - that’s a good thing - it means we did not have to deal with tragedy that year. More and more, insurance companies are being told by the government that they may not use underwriting standards that “discriminate”. Where will this lead eventually? Higher insurance costs. If an insurance company cannot reward insureds who practice safety, good health practices, prudence, and instead is required to insure everyone, no questions asked, then it will be illegal to offer lower premiums to some. If insurers are forced to offer coverage to people who drive drunk, or smoke, or have swimming pools with no fenced yard, or sign up for life insurance while dying from brain cancer, they will have to get the money from somewhere; guess where.
Is our present health care system perfect? Absolutely not. There are a lot of people, such as myself, out of work, and with no insurance. On the other hand, our present grief over the high cost health coverage and insurance is largely the result of our making, and tolerance for irresponsible behavior from individuals who do not want to be accountable to any moral code.
It may seem that I strayed off-topic - beginning with “doing your own thing” and ending with a discussion on insurance. However, the point is that life has risks and costs. As a society, we have become increasingly tolerant of self-indulgent activities that have led to a very high price tag. The payment, however, is not borne by those who are taking all the risks; the payments come from the pockets of those who have been told to keep their sense of morality to themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment