For obvious reasons I've been giving increased thought to the on-going healthcare debate. My politics tend to be fairly libertarian; I believe in limited- and limiting- government. Generally speaking I tend to see government-run programs as bloated and inefficient, frequently lending themselves to abuse. I tend to place greater confidence in the private sector to get things done more effectively and efficiently. But my illness has given me pause to consider, to realize, that necessary, needed healthcare needs to be available to all, regardless of means. While there are areas where legislation can help (portability issues, for instance) I'm still not convinced that either Massachusetts' RomneyCare nor the federal ObamaCare programs are the best ways to deliver and ensure that care for all. Providing greater incentives- increased tax breaks and the like- to institutions, individual physicians, and insurers, to treat and to cover those of limited means, health savings accounts with tax benefits for individuals and families, increased competition among and options to individuals and families of insurers (including across state lines), increased options in purchasing medications and supplies, and as always increased efficiency throughout the entire system might help better serve to provide necessary treatment for all who need without the levels of taxation and bureaucracy that a one-size-fits-all government-run program entails. Similarly, freeing up pharmaceutical companies from onerous, overbearing government regulations and disincentives, toward the ends of affording them greater means not only to develop drugs but to allow them to bring them to market- to patients- more quickly, as well as providing additional incentives for offering their drugs at discounted prices to patients of modest means. (And an aside, but two things: 1- I've never understood the mindset of some who claim corporations, in whatever industry, make "too much" profit. 2- I've always believed that adults ought to be able to ingest whatever substances they wish, be they medicinal or recreational.) Increased utilization of wellness programs, via public or private coverage, pro-active measures as part of an overall health plan can only help as well. Incentivizing the market across all sectors, from providers to patients and everyone in between, to me seems to be better policy than penalizing this (or any) industry, let alone having government take on a far greater role. We need to be- and can be- far more creative on this entire issue.
I don't claim to be an expert (yet) on this issue, nor to have all the answers. I don't believe those on Beacon Hill or Capitol Hill have all the answers either. But ultimately, while I don't know if I consider it a "right," I certainly believe, now more than ever, that anyone in need of necessary medical care should be able to receive that care, regardless of means. What we need to do is to determine and implement the best, most effective and efficient, means to deliver and ensure that coverage and care.
For further reading:
Fixing the Massachusetts Health Exchange
Yes Mr. President A Free Market Can Fix Health Care
How Much Does Medicaid Improve Well-Being? (7/8)
