From: shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford )
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Health Care [long] -- was Re: I will vote for Clinton if ...
Date: 11 Oct 92 07:40:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

Here's some thoughts on health care in the form of attempting
to convince an apparent Clinton supporter to consider Bush.  
I give one possible "nightmare" scenario followed by a comparison
between two philosophies of government with respect to health care.

Please give the net a break and edit out parts of the message you
don't want to respond to (including this part, I'm sure!! :-)
  
In article <1992Oct9.232046.12148@u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>
>Okay.  For you, taxation is the paramount issue.  Vote for
>Bush.  For me, the three biggest issues are:  national health
>care, the future of the Supreme Court, and the further intrusion
>of christian fundamentalism into public life.  I'm voting
>for Clinton.  Isn't democracy fun? :)
>

I'd like to take a shot at convincing you that Clinton doesn't
provide the best solution to your concerns.

Health care is a very important issue, and both parties are
talking about ways to improve the situation.  I believe, along
with most Republicans, that our health care problem would be
solved best through a combination of competition and assistance.
It appears that most Democrats prefer a solution that depends
on increased regulation and massive government funding.

Here is the scenario I am afraid of:  Clinton is elected
President along with Democrat majorities in both the House
and Senate.  Senator Kennedy sponsors a national health
care bill totally regulating the health care industry.
The government would tell us which doctor to see, which
hospital to go to, which tests could be used, which
treatments would be allowed.  The system would be similar
to the VA hospital system or the military hospitals.  

I've seen the results of such a system first-hand.
There is a lot of benefit in such a system -- as long as
you don't need any special treatment.  What if we "cut costs"
by denying AIDS patients access to their expensive drugs?
What if we decide chemotherapy for elderly cancer patients
doesn't meet the budgetary requirements?

There is no proof that this scenario could happen.  I'm
not trying to say that it would, but it scares me enough
to seek other options.  The Republican party offers an
in-between step which reduces the chance of a "1984"-ish
system while offering some chance for improvement.

The right way to handle our health care crisis is to
adopt a combination of regulation and funding.  Rather
than take complete control of the industry, we should
single out the biggest problems for regulatory and
fiscal repair, while observing the indirect results
of these steps.

There are many Americans who need the government's help
in obtaining health insurance.  We should expand the
window in which medicare/medicaid type insurance is
available.  To offset some of the cost of expanding the
rolls, these programs need to have stricter controls and
streamlining of administrative function.

The insurance industry needs to be regulated better.
Our regulatory system should follow the KISS principle --
"Keep it Small and Simple".  Regulations should be few and
to the point.  Common sense should dictate most of the
necessary regulations.

A vast drain on the health care industry is the need
for doctors to insure themselves against malpractice.  We
need to impose legislated limits on damage awards.  I have
some sympathy for the victims of malpractice, and support
the doctrine that they are entitled to compensation.  I
do not believe, however, that multimillion-dollar awards
are reasonable.  Human life is generally regarded as
priceless [NO Abortion followups please, this is an attempt
to discuss health care logically!!], thus the amount of
the award doesn't really matter.  The judgement that the
individuals and/or organizations involved were responsible
is the primary importance of malpractice law.

We need to do something that none of the candidates seems
to mention.  The medical records system, both of patients
and providers, is woefully inadequate.  A powerful, secure
interstate database is necessary to prevent the few quacks
out there from staying one step ahead of the law.  It is
also necessary to ensure that when a patient needs care
the proper records are available, whether that care is
given by the patient's personal physician or an emergency
technician in another state.  [I'm looking for a job after
graduation and would be happy to lead the effort provided
adequate compensation is offered! ;-)]

I'd be interested in others' comments.  Hope y'all don't
have "author kill" commands in place after some of my
other poorly-written posts...  ;-)

David Shackelford 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:8036 alt.politics.clinton:8892