On Health Care: Past, Present, and Future

With some time to spare, since my (new) email system has seen fit to deny me access for some time now, I thought I would move over to a different doorway into the Internet and, hopefully putting my purloined time to some good purpose, make a comment on the current contretemps in the States over health care.

Some background to the subject.

During my last, junior year in university (I left early in my time there, to pursue my recently awakened spiritual curiosity for answers to and about life), after having received conditional acceptance into medical school there starting the next year (this was Stanford University in California; and the conditionality was that I completed my current year in a satisfactory manner), I took some 'wild card' courses, somewhat afield from my strictly pre-medical studies. One was a course on Philosophy; one was a short-story writing course; and one was a course on 'scientific writing'. For the latter, at one point I had to come up with a scientific project to write a paper on. For whatever reason that I can't recall now, I chose to write on the Kaiser-Permanente Health Care Plan headquartered in nearby San Francisco (or Oakland; I forget which). As I understood it, this was a system of pre-paid health care, rather than just the standard free-enterprise system prevailing in the US at the time, where you either had health insurance or you paid for treatment out of pocket. I was curious about two things in particular regarding it: (1) Did they emphasise prevention over treatment, so that they had an incentive to keep down treatment costs (in order to make more money for themselves out of the scheme); and (2) How did they feel, as individuals, working for an organisation rather than being in private practice. I submitted these questions along with a number of others to the management, unsure if I would ever get a reply; and was pleasantly surprised to receive one. It didn't go into the detail that I wished for, but at least it was cordial, and helped me a bit with my paper. I dropped out of school soon thereafter, and didn't pursue the matter further. But from the project I took away one point of awareness in particular: the 'information' that the ancient Chinese had a system of health care wherein the practitioners were paid to keep their 'charges' healthy, and if they got sick, they were treated for free. Not a bad system, I thought; and went on with my life (outside of the medical system).

I still think it's a good one; whether it was apocryphal or not. 'It': the idea of proper incentives. If your incentive is to make money from people being sick, you're not going to have a very rigorous attitude of keeping them healthy in the first place. Ergo the huge amounts of money being made by the pharmaceutical industry, in cahoots with a very well-off medical profession, as their 'front office' personnel. And as for health insurance: those companies do have some incentive to keep costs down, so that more goes into their pockets; but they still are not in business primarily to look after your health. They are in business primarily to look after their own financial health. And woe to you if you pitch up with prior conditions...

As for government 'medicine'. The argument from the right is that it is bureaucratic, wasteful, redolent with queues, poor service, etc etc, including, in the specific instance in the US, the fear that it would put illegal aliens on the scheme, and they would swamp the system, and be a huge burden on the taxpayers. Let's take this last point first. And I believe it is a point; if only because the Obama administration has made it appear to be a point, with his talk of 'spreading the wealth' being good, and ACORN going around beating the bushes to get as many people as possible - legally or not - to get out and vote for everything that that administration may well try to 'foist on the American people'; like - in a word - socialism. Or for the more rabid/suspicious/fearful: communism.

And he has led to such thinking, with his background, and appointments. His background, of connection with a socialistic political party in his Illinois days; and his appointments, including a 'green' adviser with connections with an outright communist organisation in the adviser's days in California. All of which is alien to the American mentality; a people who fought off the threat from the former Soviet Union, of totalitarian, state control over the people.

I am saying that, from my perspective, he didn't sell this idea well. In fact, set himself up for defeat on the issue; because there are too many matters of some shadiness about him and his appointments, for a considerable number of the American citizenry to be comfortable with.

As for a government system of health care in general. From my perspective - and as I say, I started thinking about this subject back in my university days - (1) it has to be taken in perspective; and (2) it doesn't HAVE to be a problem.

As to (1). The perspective includes the horrendous cost of health care in the current 'system'. The built-in incentives are all wrong. America will never have a decent health care system by leaving it up to the corporate mentality that pervades the socio-political-economic climate - including the buying of political influence by that corporate mentality. The People have to take back their country, from the oligarchs running things, with their me-first and the-devil-take-the-hindmost mentality.
I didn't agree with Ted Kennedy on his scurrilous trashing of Judge Robert Bork in his nomination for the Supreme Court. But I certainly agree with his clear and long-standing concern for the need for a better health care system in America.

(2) A government health care system could be a problem, if there are ideologues wanting to run it - ideologues, of a socialistic, or other collectivist bent, who would love to have more power over the people, and force them to be the way they want them to be; treat them like servants of the state; etc etc. 'Everybody line up for their shots. We're not asking you; we're telling you. Safety concerns? Nonsense. The individual sometimes needs to be sacrificed for the greater good. Death panels? Naw; you're just scaremongering. But there will, of course, have to be some hard decisions made, in a finite system...'

I can get back to my emails now. But a couple of closing points.

(1) As to (2) above: I lived in Australia for some years in the '90s, and they seemed to have a pretty good system of health care, with both a government aspect and a private aspect. The government aspect did not eliminate the private aspect, as some commentators on the American debate have expressed concern about. Nor has the private aspect disappeared in the UK under its NHS. A system can be as good, or bad, as the people responsible for it make it.

(2) I like what Lao-Tzu said about this sort of thing, some 2500 years ago. I didn't get his point at first, but after a little thought, I saw what he was getting at. In a book of his sayings, he was quoted thusly: "The more rules and laws, the more thieves and robbers."

And how I have translated that to our time, including with the same example as he reportedly used, is to observe:

The more doctors and hospitals, the more illness and disease.

And on that note: 'Bye for now.

Except for one last comment. Which is to say: It is - should be - all moot anyway. Because the real answer to this issue, as all others deviling us, is to do away with money. And freely trade our goods and services with each other, motivated by just one thing:

Gratitude for life, in a scheme with meaning and purpose, where everything is 'God'. To be respected. And improved. By our passing through, on our journey to ultimate Oneness.