I read an interesting commentary on cnn.com today. Sorry I don't have the exact link.
Anyway, the gist is that we should be celebrating the outpouring of ideas of the Tea Party. Of course they have a lunatic fringe. So does any political group. But the movement is about protesting what they see as bad government and bad policies.
For the most part I agree with this sentiment. I do think that we need to keep an eye on the fringe element. Some of them have clearly lost their minds. However, I think that any radical of any stripe needs to be watched closely - not just the ones affiliated with the Tea Party.
Also, the author of the cnn.com commentary agrees with my stance that the Tea Party's positions are idiotic. However, they have a right to them, as do we all.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
The Tea Party - Really?
Sorry I haven't posted lately. I've decided to join the Tea Party after my emergency lobotomy. Or maybe I'm being too hard on them. Somehow I don't think so.
As much as I believe in the free marketplace of ideas, it scares me how ignorant some of my fellow countrymen and women seem to be.
For example, the idea that people who work hard should not have to subsidize the health care of those who can't pay for it under the present system. Guess what? We a;ready do that! If someone is dying, our hospitals have to treat them even if they can't pay. Guess who picks up the bill? Should we ask for proof of insurance or cash upfront before treating a heart attack victim? Or what about a homeless child with a burst appendix? Why should someone who has no health insurance in the free market system be cared for on the public dime? Isn't this the logical conclusion to the argument?
Now some may make the argument that this is exactly right. The free market is brutal. Free market, shmee market! Aren't we supposed to be a civilized, forward-thinking society? I don't particularly want to live in a country where the dying are just allowed to die for lack of funds.
Okay. So why should we have to pay for more than just urgently needed treatments such as appendectomies or gunshot wounds? Well, the answer is that much of this emergency treatment would not be necessary if people could afford basic preventive care. For example, if a child has diabetes that is left untreated, he or she can have major health problems, including blindess and death. Treatment for these complications would then cost the taxpayers lots of money. Routine doctors visits, on the other hand, could help to diagnose these types of problems before they become so dangerous. Also, access to medicines such as insulin and even simple devices such as blood sugar monitors would drastically decrease the risk of dangerous (and expensive) complications.
Now, I am not saying that everyone should have so-called "Cadillac" health insurance. I just think that it's very dangerous for the overally health of this country for so many people to only go to the emergency room when they are on the verge of death, and then use up far more of the taxpayers money than they would have with decent subsidized health insurance.
As much as I believe in the free marketplace of ideas, it scares me how ignorant some of my fellow countrymen and women seem to be.
For example, the idea that people who work hard should not have to subsidize the health care of those who can't pay for it under the present system. Guess what? We a;ready do that! If someone is dying, our hospitals have to treat them even if they can't pay. Guess who picks up the bill? Should we ask for proof of insurance or cash upfront before treating a heart attack victim? Or what about a homeless child with a burst appendix? Why should someone who has no health insurance in the free market system be cared for on the public dime? Isn't this the logical conclusion to the argument?
Now some may make the argument that this is exactly right. The free market is brutal. Free market, shmee market! Aren't we supposed to be a civilized, forward-thinking society? I don't particularly want to live in a country where the dying are just allowed to die for lack of funds.
Okay. So why should we have to pay for more than just urgently needed treatments such as appendectomies or gunshot wounds? Well, the answer is that much of this emergency treatment would not be necessary if people could afford basic preventive care. For example, if a child has diabetes that is left untreated, he or she can have major health problems, including blindess and death. Treatment for these complications would then cost the taxpayers lots of money. Routine doctors visits, on the other hand, could help to diagnose these types of problems before they become so dangerous. Also, access to medicines such as insulin and even simple devices such as blood sugar monitors would drastically decrease the risk of dangerous (and expensive) complications.
Now, I am not saying that everyone should have so-called "Cadillac" health insurance. I just think that it's very dangerous for the overally health of this country for so many people to only go to the emergency room when they are on the verge of death, and then use up far more of the taxpayers money than they would have with decent subsidized health insurance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)