Anti-Discrimination: The Right to Take From Others
The Democrat version of the latest health care package or “ObamaCare”, as I call it, was initiated because some people claim to have “
no-access-to-health-care” issues. Others claim that the reason for a government sponsored health plan is to combat the rising cost of health care. I’m pretty sure that ObamaCare will do neither.
The OB-GYN that delivered my three children is no longer providing childbirth services and only does routine exams, general women’s
health services etc.; the liability of delivering babies has became too great for this practice. Our physician got out of this particular aspect of his profession long before we even heard of Candidate Obama. He claimed that he can no longer pay malpractice premiums. There are several OB-GYN clinics in my area that are no longer providing delivery services. My hospital is one of the last remaining delivery centers. We stay in business only because my employer happens to be a state funded teaching hospital which has a rather shallow tort cap in place. The link to high health care cost is clearly a tort reform issue.
The 1017 page ObamaCare health plan hasn’t a single word written towards any type of tort reform. It does contain a whole lot of words towards a much larger problem facing medical care today, and that is entitlement. This is the notion that doctors are required to treat certain patients in private practice, or inversely that patients are entitled to
receive medical treatment from a specific physician is ridiculous. Part of this problem with ObamaCare is that it “promises” everything to everyone. You are entitled to health care. You are entitled to be taken care of. You are entitled to receive services regardless of your own personal history, actions, or lifestyle. If I want to smoke three packs a day and drink vodka with both hands, that is my business,
right? Well, it shouldn’t be just all right. If we are all paying, there should be some sort of control.
The other part of this problem the Obama plan makes a feeble attempt to correct is discrimination. This problem lies with the theory that all discrimination is bad and must be abolished, which is patently absurd. All discrimination is not bad — in fact it’s quite necessary and on many levels and in many situations is perfectly rational, reasonable and equitable. Banks discriminate based on one’s ability or
inability to pay off debt. Car insurance companies discriminate against bad drivers. Basketball teams discriminate against short people. We discriminate everyday by the choices we make in where to live, shop, and send our kids to school. We use reasoning and logic to make dozens of decisions every day, each with a component of discrimination.
If I buy my car, I must have insurance before I can drive it off of the lot. It is a law to provide insurance for your vehicle if you drive on the public streets or Oregon, and I believe that this is true for most states in America today. If you drive fast, drink alcohol, or do practically anything particularly reckless, you get a ticket. If you get a ticket proving you are exhibiting a risky lifestyle with your car, your insurance rates go up. Why should this any different in the health insurance industry? I have a neighbor who has a sedentary lifestyle, drinks, smokes, and eats pork rinds all day. I eat healthy, watch my weight, and exercise regularly. Why do I pay the same health insurance rates as my neighbor? It isn’t fair and it isn’t right! Well, to make it even further, I pay a incredible high premium for my health care while my neighbor pays no health care at all. Yet he gets faster care. This is gone completely backwards. To save money, the Obama plan should take into account a person’s lifestyle and charge him accordingly. If a person doesn’t want to pay much for his health care, then he should be able to get the minimum care. Say only “major medical” coverage. If someone wants everything done when he is sick even private room
and private nurse, then he has the option of paying the “premium plan”. If someone wants to smoke cigarettes and to have no health care insurance at all, he should have the option to opt out. … And with this “opt out” option, Health care providers would be under no obligation give him multiple level treatments for his lung cancer. A lower cost hospice care would be made available for a reasonable fee (paid up front).
The same progressives think that by having the government intervene, all discrimination can be eliminated; Everyone can have everything, no matter what their personal situation. This is, of course, fantasy land as witnessed in the housing market. Now we’re going to give it a try in the insurance market and expect different results? The reality never changes, everybody cannot have everything equally. You might just as well pass a law that says a casino must provide equal odds for everyone that walks in. Discrimination is necessary and required no matter how badly the liberals want to eliminate it. The question is whether you want that discrimination performed in the private sector or by government, but make no mistake it will still happen. It must be there or the system will collapse. In the private sector, OB-GYN doctors refuse obese, high risk and patients without an extensive prenatal history. In the government’s hands, you get rationed medicine. They decide who gets what treatments, when, why, how much and which caregiver. The best we can do is keep the decisions in the hands of the public (that is private industry) so that we can not only continue to deliver the best health care in the world, but through competition we can keep the prices as low as possible. With the planned government controlled healthcare that is threatening us, we will have neither.