President Barack Obama’s discussion with Democrats and Republicans at the recent health care summit probably generated more confusion and frustration than good. After almost seven hours of back and forth between the two political parties, it seemed as if there was no common ground regarding the national health care reform.
There is obviously a divide between the Democrat and Republican philosophies in this nation’s health care. But what is it?
The hospital is a great place to meet people. I recently had lunch with a Norwegian nurse who emigrated about a decade ago. She told me of a friend’s grandmother who was diagnosed with glioma, a type of brain tumor. She had the tumor resected, was given post-surgical chemotherapy and had a private physician and three nurses, who tended to her health, house-keeping and cooking for six months.
Her friend’s family didn’t pay one cent for the surgery, chemotherapy, medication or the private staff of medical professionals. Such are the blessings of a universal health care system run by the government.
The downside? Cost. Norwegian federal taxes are immensely greater than those implemented in the United States. Taxes in Norway also extend past income or property and into daily items with “special” taxes &-&- cigarettes, alcohol and cosmetics to name a few.
And this is the crux of the philosophy &-&-balancing between taxing and spending.
A spirit of capitalism pervades through the American population. To deny this is to deny what made this country one of the world’s economic giants. Private ownership goes along with American liberalism. American history endows the individual citizen with the freedom of choice. To place certain utilitarian views would in effect upset this history. Why should the lazy and unproductive receive the benefits generated by the active and productive?
The health care summit discussions revolved around precisely the issues addressed above: spending on a universal health care policy and generating the figures in order to spend (taxing). Democrats and Republicans both danced around the issue but did not settle on a definitive conclusion.
It can be argued that taxing in order to pay for universal health care would greatly upset the American public. One may state that higher taxes on Wall Street and lower taxes on Main Street could be a solution, but that just takes us back to square one, the issue between the ideals of capitalism and qualities of a socialistic economy. American history strongly favors the former and despises the latter. It is history that dictates the present and future.
I believe that this nation should change the way it runs its health care policies. Insurance companies may give certain patients the access they need for good health care, but it leaves a noticeable majority out and the policies are not always fair. However, finding a solution is difficult.
The current reform bill is too ambitious to say the least. To be frank, I don’t think the populace will tolerate such a large change in system. I believe that small, incremented amendments should be made rather than a large reform. To move a mountain, one has to start with the first stone.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
