Rationed Healthcare?
By Christian Milord | 03/03/09 | 05:29 PM EDT | 0 Comments
If you think the red tape at city hall, county agencies, or the state DMV is irritating, just imagine the degree of bureaucratic inertia we'd face if our healthcare was managed by national bean counters!! Imagine the waiting times just to check in and finally see a nurse or doctor to take care of your health needs and/or prescriptions.
In America, folks have the right to choose their own health insurance, doctors, and hospitals. If they don't choose their own care, or can't afford it, then they are at the mercy of government run clinics. Sometimes, poor folks run up the cost of healthcare by using private facilities they can't afford, while taxpayers end up footing part of the bill.
Recently, Pres. Obama tapped Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to be his Sec. of HHS. She has been a fairly popular governor, and also served for eight years as Insurance Commissioner. Sebelius has worked on healthcare issues, and at times battled the insurance industry in her state.
Although Kansas GOP Senators Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts have given her the thumbs up, is she a better pick than Tom Daschle? Would Americans give her the green light? Would Sebelius stand on the side of individual healthcare choices, or be an advocate for costly, watered down healthcare. One would hope that she's paid her taxes, too.
It's possible that Sebelius would attempt to reform ponderous Medicaid and Medicare, programs that certainly need an overhaul. However, past attempts to streamline these agencies and Social Security have been quite futile. Perhaps she would attempt to create a centralized health system that folks would be coerced into joining.
If that occurs, free choices would be constrained and the quality of care would diminish even while costs for the taxpayer would increase. We might even face rationed healthcare. What incentives would there be for insurance companies to compete and provide a range of service plans if they are micromanaged? How could doctors and hospitals compete when Uncle Sam is looking over their shoulders? Do we really want a Canadian style, or Euro-style socialized medical care? Where could anyone go to receive state-of-the-art healthcare?
Like any other human endeavor, healthcare is best run as a business, with reasonable regulatory oversight for licensing, etc. While altruism plays a role in the medical field, efficiency, skill, and speed are equally important. Voluntary altruism combined with a business sense gets the job done in the free markets. Mandated phony altruism from the Feds will only serve to erode the quality of healthcare, and raise the costs. Currently, most patients wait a few minutes or hours for service. In the future, that wait for proper healthcare might turn into days, weeks, months, or perhaps even years.
In America, folks have the right to choose their own health insurance, doctors, and hospitals. If they don't choose their own care, or can't afford it, then they are at the mercy of government run clinics. Sometimes, poor folks run up the cost of healthcare by using private facilities they can't afford, while taxpayers end up footing part of the bill.
Recently, Pres. Obama tapped Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to be his Sec. of HHS. She has been a fairly popular governor, and also served for eight years as Insurance Commissioner. Sebelius has worked on healthcare issues, and at times battled the insurance industry in her state.
Although Kansas GOP Senators Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts have given her the thumbs up, is she a better pick than Tom Daschle? Would Americans give her the green light? Would Sebelius stand on the side of individual healthcare choices, or be an advocate for costly, watered down healthcare. One would hope that she's paid her taxes, too.
It's possible that Sebelius would attempt to reform ponderous Medicaid and Medicare, programs that certainly need an overhaul. However, past attempts to streamline these agencies and Social Security have been quite futile. Perhaps she would attempt to create a centralized health system that folks would be coerced into joining.
If that occurs, free choices would be constrained and the quality of care would diminish even while costs for the taxpayer would increase. We might even face rationed healthcare. What incentives would there be for insurance companies to compete and provide a range of service plans if they are micromanaged? How could doctors and hospitals compete when Uncle Sam is looking over their shoulders? Do we really want a Canadian style, or Euro-style socialized medical care? Where could anyone go to receive state-of-the-art healthcare?
Like any other human endeavor, healthcare is best run as a business, with reasonable regulatory oversight for licensing, etc. While altruism plays a role in the medical field, efficiency, skill, and speed are equally important. Voluntary altruism combined with a business sense gets the job done in the free markets. Mandated phony altruism from the Feds will only serve to erode the quality of healthcare, and raise the costs. Currently, most patients wait a few minutes or hours for service. In the future, that wait for proper healthcare might turn into days, weeks, months, or perhaps even years.
0 Comments | Related Topics »National | SPOTLIGHT (Editorial Staff Only)
RECOMMENDED SITES
















Comments
Post new comment