Sunday, March 25, 2012

And now about healthcare

Well, I've opened some of my favorite controversies, so now what about healthcare? The Chicago Tribune printed the most inane, and insulting really, statement today. They of course don't support the Affordable Care Act (they are very conservative), which I refuse to call "Obamacare" (I find that word juvenile and unsophisticated). They said, "The healthy are subsidizing the sick" with this bill. Give me a break. What is all insurance about? Isn't that the point, be it health care, auto, home, etc.? I have never made a claim on our home insurance (more than 20 years), and yet home insurance, folks, is required if you have a mortgage. Yes, required. I guess that means that I have subsidized my neighbor whose house burned down. How sophomoric to think that way.

So what's the beef about requiring healthcare insurance anyway? This, people, is all political. As a nurse, I have seen the youngest and healthiest suddenly taken devastatingly sick. So, for those 25 year olds who have a perforated appendix, which goes to septicemia, and they need to be in the ICU on a ventilator, etc., etc., etc....what happens? Who pays for that when those patients decide they are too healthy for insurance? I saw a case just like that once. A college student didn't buy health insurance, even though her parents had given her money for it. Therefore, she had hundreds of thousands of dollars of bills that no one could pay. Well, either the taxpayers pay for that or those who are insured pay for it. Certainly we wouldn't let her die, right? That's the problem. Devastation can happen to anyone at any time. Are people too dense or too protected to realize this? Young families can suddenly find themselves with a child with leukemia who needs hospitalization, chemotherapy, and a bone marrow transplant. What if they didn't buy health insurance. Should that child die? Does the Tribune not know how much this happens and how expensive it is? Clearly no.

Do you really think the cost will be less if we don't require insurance? If so, you haven't thought about the details or the variety of circumstances. We'd all be paying for those who don't buy insurance....or let them die.

Further, do you really think the government doesn't require people to buy anything? Do you have a license to practice law? Nursing? Medicine? CPA? Etc.? That's the government. Do you have a car with no insurance? In Illinois you could go to jail.

The whole argument is just ridiculous and I sincerely hope the Supreme Court won't, again, let us down. The Chicago Tribune has already let me down with their emotional reaction, instead of looking at the facts.

No comments: