Just To Be Clear: An Experiment In Stating Your Opinion (by Andy McGee)
By Corey Thompson, filed in Andy McGee, Guest Features on Feb.19, 2009
***Editor’s Note: Andy McGee is a Liberal Columnist for “The Thirsty Quill.” While Mr. McGee often writes for ‘The Quill,’ it is important for readers to note that his opinions and views are strictly his own, and rarely reflect the opinions and views of the pro-Conservative ideals of this site. As always, “The Thirsty Quill” greatly appreciates Andy’s participation and contributions.***
“Just To Be Clear” (An Experiment In Stating Your Opinion)
By: Andy McGee, Columnist
It has been said that the number one reason that negotiations breakdown, whether they be in sales or in our most private situations, is that one or both sides do not adequately disclose their true desires or goals.
It is within this context that I began to articulate my beliefs and positions regarding healthcare. I am also curious as to the true desires and beliefs of the self-proclaimed “Conservative.”
Allow me to begin this experiment by stating my opinion regarding nationalized healthcare. I suppose that if we can make some headway here, then we certainly can work through more important topics like whether Barry Bonds deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, or whether or not Michael Phelps should be stripped of his medals.
I believe that the time and prudence of nationalized healthcare is not only upon us, but that it is well overdue, and certainly inevitable if we are to be considered the greatest of all nations.
It would be different if there were not a working model out there for this program, or if we were indeed “blazing new trails” as we all-too-often think we do. Canada, France, much of Europe (including Great Britain), and even Cuba have nationalized healthcare.
Therefore, my question is simple:
If these countries have made national healthcare a reality, then why can’t we?
Now, to ask this question is to invite the same old, hum-dumb, worn out debates, using repetitive talking points from one side or the other. So, in an effort to encourage free thought and personable dialogue, I request that you drill down just a little on your stance.
What I mean is this: before you write a knee-jerk response, try to break down the doctrine and consider the motives, along with the collateral benefits, advantages, and limitations of what you are endorsing. If you are quite convicted in your opinion, this should not be too hard to do, as I hold all of you in very high regard and respect your intelligence.
I have recently found in my conversations with so-called “Conservatives,” that the majority of their dissent comes from fear. This fear is generated from the idea that to take advantage of nationalized healthcare, one would be giving up the quality of care based on the lack of incentive for the caregiver.
So, here is my second question:
Do you believe that in order to take Capitalism out of the Health and Drug industry, it would remove the incentives necessary for those professionals to perform their jobs effectively, thus leading to lower standards, lack of proper care, and ultimately more health problems?
Please answer “yes” or “no” to these questions prior to posting your response, as I am particularly curious as to how many answer “yes,” and why. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful response and participation.
***Editor’s Note: Andy McGee is a Liberal Columnist for “The Thirsty Quill.” While Mr. McGee often writes for ‘The Quill,’ it is important for readers to note that his opinions and views are strictly his own, and rarely reflect the opinions and views of the pro-Conservative ideals of this site. As always, “The Thirsty Quill” greatly appreciates Andy’s participation and contributions.***
February 19th, 2009 on 11:49 am
#1.I can’t give you a Yes no based on how it is worded… I think the appropriate answer is: We can… hypothetically.
Just because other countries have nationalized healthcare doesn’t mean it is a good idea. I’m sure your mother asked you at some point in your life that if your friends jumped off a building would you just because they did it?
England basically outlawed private practice in favor of nationalized medicine only to reverse course and allow citizens to go to outside care givers because of backlogs and ineffective care. My Dad’s cousin died in England after about a 6 month wait for surgery for cancer surgery that he would have had almost immediately in the US. America’s hat has issues too- many Canadians come to the U.S. for emergency treatment like bypass surgery and many types of cancer treatments because the waiting time. Sometimes these Canucks have to wait months before receiving needed treatment. We also have the payment issue. A country as tax conscious as we are, I can’t imagine the thought of facing tax rates the countries operating nationalized health care pay. As a country that unfortunately wants the moon and doesn’t want to pay for it, I can’t see how nationalized healthcare could come within 100 miles of the economies of scales the American Tax payer would find palatable.
#2. You have too many variables for #2 to get a simple yes/no. In a court of law an attorney would object to you leading the witness . Let me rephrase somewhat “would Nationalizing Health Care decrease efficiency?” Or “would removing Capitalism reduce the level of care?” I answer Yes to both of those. Here are a few of my concerns.
-Government run agencies are nothing short of inefficient. There is absolutely no empirical evidence to show that we could do a 180 and have nationalized health care function as an efficient endeavor. As I mentioned in my earlier response, the current users don’t have it working all that well, so I’d hate to used them as a model (especially considering their Governments are the picture of functionality compared to ours most of the time).
-Effort/Commitment to succeed: I have yet to see any US government run agency strive for customer satisfaction in any sense of the word. I don’t see Health Care avoiding this plague.
-Service: Supply versus demand tells me that when something is free, the demand quickly becomes unlimited. On the other side of that coin unlimited demand is a shortage of supply. I fear the day we don’t have having enough doctors, nurses, MRI Tubes, CAT scan machines. I don’t want to see lines and service limitations. All I can picture if the lines at the DMV… “OK sir here are your MRI results, please go to that line over there and the will help you, and after they decipher the results you will go to the next line for treatment”
I’m not going to argue with you that there needs to be changes. Most hospitals lose $$, Doctors pay ridiculous amounts of $$ for liability/malpractice insurance, Drug Companies spend boatloads of cash to come up with new drugs, to keep it up they charge a mint before the drug can go generic. This all leads to health care costing a fortune. I agree that the 40 millionish Americans not covered need to be covered in some shape or form- a good start would be getting the millions eligible, but not currently enrolled for coverage signed up. I just don’t think nationalized is the way to go… If you want a free meal you go to the soup kitchen, if you want a good meal you go to a restaurant. Just like virtually everything else in this world, you get what you pay for.
Unfortunately I’m not sure there is a good answer here.
February 19th, 2009 on 8:20 pm
1. If these countries have made national healthcare a reality, then why can’t we?
The United States is too large and too deeply entrenched in a privatized/insurance based healthcare system to be able to switch to a nationalized healthcare system in any kind of reasonable time and, in my humble opinion, at least 20 years.
Now on the other side, there are just as many success stories as horror stories. My boss lived in Canada all his life until recently and said that he and his family loved the nationalized healthcare system. His mother currently has Alzheimers as is being treated and looked after in an immaculate, pristine facility. His father had to have his gallbladder removed due to gallstones and got his surgery immediately after his doctor’s visit. But once again, there are hundreds of stories and Flynn’s story is just as effective as mine in showing the + and -’s of the arguement.
2. I feel that taking the Capitalism out of the health care profession would be an interesting venture into thought (read: not good). A better question would what if we plugged capitalsim into other areas?
Lets take a look at another profession that deals with service: Teaching. There is no capitalism in teaching; of that we can all agree. Does that mean that teachers do not perform their jobs to the best of their abilities? No, not in the slightest. As a student teacher preparing to enter the workforce, I am expected to be highly trained and effective at my job, even though I do not make $250,000 dollars a year.
Although, if the salary for teachers was raised that high, you can bet that the standards of teachers would be raised exponentially and results would be demanded. If everyone paid a private school bill for education each year, you can be that the education level in this country would raise.
Now, lets reverse my arguement. Right now, Doctors get paid a good sum of money (read: more than enough to put food on the table), and with that they have higher expectations. If we put doctors on a plan similar to teachers, I feel that there would be a decline in service provided, though not across the board. The majority of the doctors would still do their jobs because it is what they love to do, just like teachers, but you might also see more unmotivated doctors, just like teachers.
I’m not sure if this makes sense to anybody but myself, so feel free to pick apart my post
February 19th, 2009 on 11:04 pm
Thank both of you gentlemen, for your candid and honest answers to my questions.
Sean, I am sorry to hear about your father’s cousin. Cancer knows no borders and also no doctrine. My hope is that we can begin to shake all the dust out of this issue by removing all the big issues and ironing out the rest of the problems. I am glad to see that we all agree that something has to be done. I also agree that our government is very inefficient and that saddens me because I believe much like our President that it can work with the right motives and passion. I also agree that it would be a 180 to have this national benefit. I believe that with the lobbyist, corporations (both in insurance and pharmaceuticals) We the People (Consumers once known as Citizens) will have no real change without a major outpouring of activism and boycotts. My point in wanting everyone to drill down is that I believe that with these corporate interests in the way of national healthcare we will never get there with a lukewarm interest based on apathy.
Now here is a bright spot based on your comments about Supply and Demand. If there is a larger demand there is a major vacuum to fill thousands if not millions of jobs. This is one of my favorite points for nationalized healthcare. It helps us meet one of our goals (jobs) that does not mean these folks won’t be qualified as the majority of these new positions will be in the preventive medicine field. This will set a course for thousands of Americans to begin training in the medical industry.
Steven, you make a great point about the vastness of this country vs. the smaller ones of Europe and Cuba. Canada is not a small country and with our technology we are making the world smaller than ever. Your positive comments about Canadian care are not alone out there in fact I challenge anyone so interested in this topic to do some rooting around and verify where the information they have received is coming from. We are all aware that the media is corporate, this is one of the reasons that I maintain that it is not a liberal media. Do all of us agree that a wealthy 1% run pretty much all we hear, see and read? If so where does all this money come from? Oil, Drugs, Land, Weapons, Science? How about all of them?
Do we believe that the ultra elite in healthcare and pharmaceuticals don’t have tentacles well within the media and Washington? Of course they do.
Now lastly, I like your parallel to teachers. I think that all teachers, doctors, primary care physicians, should all be on results based pay plans. In my world pay plan is job description. Just because you get paid by the government does not mean that you can not have an effective pay plan. As far as taking the capitalism out of medicine: We have government subsidized Police protection, Fire fighters, Libraries, ect… Now my question is if we praise out valiant Fire Fighters, teachers, and Police officers, which we should, for what they do, then why do we believe that doctors would not be just as efficient and good at their job not based on what drugs they prescribe (which is more likely based now on which pharmacy rep has wined and dined them most recently) but rather that it is what the patient needs.
My vision requires that we get back to believing in how good we can be as a Nation. It is tough based on the road we have traveled but it can be done. If not, then where are we really heading anyway? Thanks again
February 19th, 2009 on 11:33 pm
You should have been a doctor. Sorry Steven.