The Health Care Problem

The debate rages concerning health care in this nation. This is a double edged sword and it appears there is little room for the "middle ground." It is undeniable that this country has some of the best health care facilities in the world. People come from all over to the Houston Medical Center and other facilities for treatment options that may be unavailable in their country. Canadians cross the border to take advantage of the benefits that this country's system has to offer. If you have good health insurance, then you should have no real problem getting the care needed, even if you have a catastrophic event. If you have poor or no health insurance then you may have a dire problem. There are documented cases in which a person's treatment is denied due to an insurance company simply not wanting to pay. This is criminal. Consider this, if you have a child that is diagnosed with (God Forbid) lymphoma, you will demand that treatment begin immediately with no argument whatsoever. What if your insurance company determines that they are not interested in providing the cost of treatment. Think it can't happen? Think again! There are those in the insurance industry that will place obstacles in the way that will delay treatment to the point that any treatment eventually becomes a moot point. This of course is the goal of these gorgons. If something like this were to happen, would you not be at least tempted to conduct a personal interview with the scum that delayed and denied your child's treatment? I think you would. Let us also consider this. If the "decision maker" with the insurance company determines that your child's treatment is not cost effective, but that the outcome of delayed or no treatment is probable death; would they not be guilty of murder in the 1st degree?Common sense would dictate that this is the case. Think about it, the person delays or denies your child's treatment, knowing full well what the probable outcome is, they have forethought the matter. Forethought is a major parameter for classifying murder as 1st degree. The person representing the insurance company could also be guilty of malice, another parameter. If the prime motivator for delaying treatment is to save their employer money at the expense of your child's life, they have evil intent and therefore are malicious. What if the state you lived in utilized capital punishment? If a person, with malice and forethought, denied care to your child and the outcome was fatal, would that not justify capital punishment? If it destroyed your family you would think so with all your soul. Of course, those in the insurance industry do this daily with no sanction. If you have no insurance at all, well then you are probably just screwed unless you are very, very wealthy.
Just the above reason alone makes it difficult to sympathize with the insurance industry when they fight any kind of reform. The industry is deathly afraid of any further oversight or competing government plan. Abuse by the insurance industry is why this country has a possible government option in the works anyway. My heart tells me that quality health care is a public service and the right of any American citizen.
Now we have a problem. I told you the whole mess is a double edged sword. Does this nation really want the government further involved in our lives? It is unthinkable that they would be able to manage this nation's health care. The federal government does very little with competence as far a I can tell. Even our war fighting capability could be improved on, and that is one thing we seem to be pretty good at. Have you ever been treated at a VA or USPHS facility?
What about some local health district's facility? Some are pretty good and others are just not. I'm afraid that the "bad" treatment that one gets at some government facilities would be the norm. No I don't trust the government one bit. Number one, the scenario that is noted above concerning insurance abuse would probably occur also with the government run option. In spades! Number two, those that work in government are usually less competent than those in the private sector. This is somewhat of a generalization. Of course there are some fine people in government service, but the sense of "customer service" that is necessary in the private sector is undeniably lacking in the public sector.
Another major problem is those that are pushing for a government plan are untrustworthy. Let us take a look at the President. His past associations alone are enough to doubt his common sense. The "Rev" Wright is garbage and Bill Ayers goes way beyond just being your typical communist (which is stupid, but perfectly legal). This man is a terrorist. There is no "was" in terrorist. Once a terrorist, always a terrorist. The only difference between this guy and Mcvie is that Mcvie was unfortunately succesful, while Ayers fortunately was and is a fuck up. Do we really trust a man to be President with such lack of judgement in his personal associations to be ultimately in control of our health care (much less the nation)? That is worrisome.
Nancy Pelosi is another who is pushing for a national system. If you think that she just looks crazy, wait until she opens her mouth. She reportedly said that some people showing up at "town hall meetings," to discuss health care were brandishing swastikas. That is craaaaaazy.
The recent comment by Barbara Boxer concerning the way people at "town hall meetings" were dressed is a little odd. Babs is not a bad looking old broad though.
Of course Dick Durbin would be among this bunch. My contempt for this treasonous individual is documented in an earlier editorial. The man is a poonween.
I do not know much about Henry Waxman, but he sure look weird. Sort of like a vampire in the Will Smith film "I Am Legend.
Then we come to Rahm Emanuel. This guy is certainly not to be trusted. Have you ever seen the movie "The Patriot" starring Mel Gibson and the late Heath Ledger? There is a wonderful actor in that film named Jason Isaacs who plays the antagonist Col. Tavington. (He is quite good at playing the villain, after all, he also plays the evil Lucius Malfoy in the "Harry Potter" films). In "The Patriot" Col. Tavington (Isaacs) asks Capt. Wilkins (Adam Baldwin) who is a Tory, something to the effect of; Why should I trust a man who would war upon his neighbors and countrymen? This is not a direct quote, but you get the gist. Consider this, Mr. Emanuel is Jewish and yet he serves an administration that appears to be at least somewhat hostile to Israel. Now it is true that Mr. Emanuel, as an American, should put the interests of the United States in front of those of a foreign power, and appears to do so, yet it still gives you pause. The fate and well being of Israel is something that most American Jewish people, rightly or wrongly, appear to have an interest in. Capt Wilkins was an American who served the interests of Britain in the movie. There is a difference but also a similarity. Apparently Mr. Emanuel served Israel during the first Gulf War, and yet he now serves a possible anti Israel administration. Hmmmmmm. Do we really want this guy to have anything to do with our health care system, or anything else for that matter?

I noted earlier that I truly believe that all Americans are entitled, yes I said entitled, to the best health care that is available, but unfortunately those who are pushing for an alternative now are flat untrustworthy. They just don't give me the "warm and fuzzies."