What if ? our present health care system was a patient, a patient that had just been rushed by ambulance to the emergency room of a hospital where we were the staff on duty. Simultaneously (without a second thought) we would stabilize the patient, treat immediately observable condition/symptoms and their possible complications, accurately identify/diagnose the cause(s) , then provide the most suitable, non-invasive complete therapy and follow up care. Of course, we would also cross our fingers.
On the other hand we could say "Sorry", turn out the lights and keep an eye open for customers that are not a fiscal liability. Current general thought now takes it for granted that some human rights are god given (life, liberty,the pursuit of happiness), but in practice this notion is historically incorrect. It has only been a matter of several centuries that the greater mass of humanity has been viewed and treated in terms of the "individual" rather than a category.
This "New" idea of human rights (a body of evolving philosophic concepts) has been embraced by a recent, still forming collective community of individuals. Even so, in present light the "the right to health care" has the position of being a very radical position by most standards. However, as we now regulate the practice of medicine by licensing, and a massive bulwark of legal /judicial control, we have created a situation of limited access to the practice of medicine by individuals for themselves and others as they see fit to consent to.
This is a prudent overseeing of qualitative standards, but it is a denial of access to those who for any reason cannot partake in the benefits of such regulation. And this represents an unfair reward to a preferred group within the rights community. A strong bottom line position holds fast to the principle that if a "rights" system creates a problem, either the system itself or the way it is applied or both, must be changed.
Analogies are not as direct as real arguments, yet I was completely serious about the approach taken in the first paragraph of this opinion. It is a general prescription for immediately dealing with these issues. I'm enough of an optimist to believe in the possibility that this issue can be thoughtfully, openly debated, that timely equitable solutions be found, and at the end of the day we will be able to say 'we did a good thing, it wasn't such a bad idea after all.
To this I would add a second analogy: Imagine what would have to be added to our present health care system if we were to immediately expand and implement it on a global scale. Talk about gearing up for a major offensive involving every aspect of health care, a real humdinger, No? . With this in mind it is perhaps easier to see that in reality our own national interest is a much more workable model of this same exercise. The realities of our present system show not only great progress toward where we could/should be as a community. It also suggest that the give and take required of all to make fair changes is more closely within our means. A hop-skip-and-jump away when compared to taking the world burden to our shoulders, even though that would be of greater merit.
In closing, I would also suggest that it may be of use to consider some of the methods we would need to adopt if we were to seriously treat the world , and implement these when we look for and choose long term solutions to health care and accessibility problems in our own sphere of affairs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Thought-provoking stuff. You're right about the use of analogy to describe problems and suggest solutions--it communicates in a way nothing else does, and engages the imagination. Can anyone deny that our failure to figure out health care is a failure of imagination?
And a failure of political will, of course. It's going to take a real dismantling of conventional wisdom and cliches to make a dent in this problem. Someone's going to have to frame the debate in a new way that can compete, sound-bite-wise, on the 24-hour news cycle. All the GOP has to do is trot out the phrase "socialized medicine" and it galvanizes their reactionary base.
You're looking at this in a much bigger way than what I've just described. The idea that we could get traction on a global scale when we can't do it domestically seems crazy, but maybe crazy is just what the doctor ordered. Two thoughts:
What if we envisioned the Dept. of Defense in a completely different way, modeling its main efforts after the hospital ship missions that our friend Kevin Mattonen's wife does for the U.S. Navy. The results of these missions have been amazing--not just in terms of health care, but in terms of restoring the image of the U.S. as a benevolent superpower. Opinion polls about the U.S. before and after recent Indonesian missions by the Mercy ship Kevin's wife works on turned the unfavorable/favorable opinion ratio on its ear. If that can be done in Indonesia, which has been a cauldron of anti-U.S. hatred, it can be done just about anywhere. Costs a lot less than a laser-defense shield, too.
The other model is RED, which is mainly an economic development model with health-care philanthropy on the side. Recent press criticized RED for contributing so little money toward AIDS/malaria/etc., which missed the real thrust of the project: to provide Africans opportunities to offer goods and services to the world. So those Gap t-shirts are less about the portion of proceeds going to AIDS hospitals and more about supporting African cotton growers and manufacturers.
What would a domestic version of that look like, say, in the inner city, where so few people have health care?
Anyway, to more specific analogical thinking: If our health care system were an AIDS patient, what cocktail would we use to address its vulnerabilities?
Dear Jim, thanks for the responce, let me grok on your points and get back to you. As you know I'm suffering from 'STH' (serious techno' handicap) a condition I'll have to deal with myself. You may have noticed a redundent publishing of this piece on the C.R. site, I did include a personal post script to you at the end, just in case ''''yo didn't roll with the scroll'''
SPH
What if? we had a site where I could write my views--extensively--and send them without a registrative process after which my message is lost?
I don't have the energy to rewrite...but it was good guys.
~~CJ
Hello my friend, glad to see you over on this side of the street. all the best to you. love Scotland
Post a Comment