Back in September, one of my friends on Facebook linked to an article in the New York Times on her wall. The title of the Op Ed is "The Body Count at Home" and talks about a young woman who died from lupus. When i read it, i of course felt it was sad, but was offended by the fact that the article claims that certain members of Congress want us to do "nothing" for people like her (quote: "About as many people who were killed on 9/11 die every two months because of our failure to provide universal insurance and yet many members of Congress want us to do nothing?"). i wanted to say something to this friend, to everyone, but was worried about offending people, despite the fact that i had been offended. Since reading the article and not responding i have had writers block. i think of that article often and wish that i would have written something in response, and then it felt like i had waited too long. Well, the healthcare debate reared it's nasty head in Congress again this weekend, and i'm tired of having writer's block, i think that it's finally time for me to get this off my chest. Please keep in mind that i'm not writing this trying to offend anyone, rather to set some inconsistencies straight and point out some facts. As Rush likes to point out, a lot of people feel better about themselves because they feel sorry when something bad happens to someone, but their solution often only makes things worse for everyone, let alone that one individual.
To start off, this claim that about 1366 people in the U.S. are dying without healthcare every other month seems a bit steep. Where did that number come from? Did Mr. Kristof discover a source for that bit of info or did someone ad it onto the headline to catch interest and inflame people's sensibilities?
To sum up about Nikki (the 21 year old that the piece is about), she's a college grad with lupus that worked in healthcare that gradually got too sick to work so she lost her own healthcare. Kristof then brings up the author of a book who took up Nikki's plight (of course he's not trying to advertise said book, is he?), who says that Nikki couldn't find any new coverage because of her pre-existing condition. "She spent months painfully writing letters to anyone she thought might be able to help. She fought tenaciously for her life."
This flowery language draws sympathy but is weak in the facts department. One would think that because Nikki worked in the industry she would know a few things about keeping her coverage: the article makes it sound like she had the money to pay for it, after all. My question is, why didn't she use Cobra? That's how i paid for my wisdom teeth surgery after i quit working at KJCT. I find it hard to believe that she couldn't find one company to insure her or anyone else to help. There are other sources to consider such as research funds for those with Lupus, free hospitals/clinics, paying for her care out of pocket, and if she was truly disabled then drawing on disability from the government. Of course the next logical place to look for help would be the community: she could have tried raising the funds, asking for donations, seeking help at church, etc. A woman that goes to my church helped a friend raise money when that friend's daughter had cancer, and i am talking about extreme amounts of money, they were able to raise all the money. And, if all else fails, there is the emergency room, which is used every day by people that don't have an emergency but cannot afford medical insurance, often with no cost to the patient, just to the taxpayers.
Unfortunately, it seems as if Nikki liked writing letters until she was in pain more than the idea of actually getting care, because it wasn't until she "collapsed at her home" that she was "rushed to a hospital emergency room, which was then required to treat her without payment until her condition stabilized". By that point, her condition was apparently so bad that surgery wasn't enough... and died at the age of 32. Did you catch that? She lived 11 years after losing her job in the health care industry. She apparently had her own home. The medical workers were wonderful, but she "fell through the cracks."
Please don't misunderstand me, it's sad that she died at the age of 32... but the language that Mr. Kristof uses makes it sound like all of this happened overnight. She had ten years of her own choices that influnced what happened to her life. Mr. Kristof advises that it would have been better of her to rob a bank so she could get free healthcare (because it's so horrible the way we make sure our criminals stay healthy in the U.S.), i'm rather surprised he doesn't just advise her to move to Canada or the UK where they have this perfect healthcare system, where care is free for everyone, etc. My sympathies go out to her parents, but really... could this article be more overdramatic?
The saddest thing about this article is that the parents and author and columnist expect the government to fix the healthcare system. I am fully aware that such is the opinion of what must be done on one side of the issue. On the other side of the issue, we are looking at what the government has done with Social Security, the Stimulus package, etc., and are loudly saying keep your hands off. On this side, we are looking at countries such as Canada, where it takes weeks just to get to see a doctor, and the UK, where women are going to the hospital to have their babies only to be turned away, and giving birth in stairwells and bathrooms instead, and wondering what's so great about that system. Canadians, and British, and people from around the world come to the U.S. to get better medical care, not the other way around. I wonder about why people like Michael J. Fox want the socialization of healthcare when it means that all the funding for research is going to get cut in order to cut down on costs.
Would socialized healthcare have saved Nikki? Possibly, though i have seen no proof that there was any medical care to help her. All of the surgeries she received were reportedly ineffectual. What i do know is that Nikki's surgeries got paid for by our tax dollars even without the reforms that my friend is supporting, and that if those reforms go through then all the coverage for my grandparents will immediately be cut and rationed. My grandparents have paid taxes their entire lives, who is my friend or the government to tell them that they are no longer worthy of full coverage just because they have grown old? Grandad doesn't deserve any healthcare because he's got dementia? If the government can take away coverage because of that, what is to stop them from taking coverage away from Nikki? For that matter, what is to stop them from forcing coverage on me when i do not want it and then jailing or fining me because i want to have my children at home, not circumcise them, not get them vaccinated, and not tie my tubes? What's to stop them from anything when they control our health, our very lives? What indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment