…a good post over at . . ….

I work in the healthcare field. I am not aware of any insurance plan that allows any treatment without question simply because a physician orders it. Medicine is a science and physicians hold themselves to certain standards of practice. Treatments must demonstrate an accepted risk/benefit ratio to be recommended. All plans, private and public, have an appeals process to determine if a particular treatment may have merit and also to make sure that patients are not being harmed by expirimental or not yet proven treatments.

Regarding medical marijuana, are there private plans that allow this where the government doesn’t? I personally feel that in the case of marijuana, there is probably sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it is effective in some cases and that it poses no more risks, medical or societal, than many of the other medicines we use. I would be surprised if Christians helping Christians paid for it though, but what the heck!
When you talk about radiation facilities I assume that you mean radiation that is used for cancer treatment and not radiology centers. There is a desire on the part of some physicians to strip away some of the more profitable services that are offered in the hospital setting and establish free standing services so that they can bill both a facility fee and technical fee. This is more profitable for the physician but can, in some instances, denie the hospital profits that help to support the services that are necessary but not profitable. Inpatient treatment of complex illnesses and traumatic injuries will always be necessary. The moratorium you are discussing may be intended to protect this public resource.
I am not sure where the idea comes from that the government has more red tape or is more abusive or intrusive than private plans. My bookkeeper tells me that of all the plans she works with, Medicaid is the most prompt, efficient and user friendly. It doesn’t pay as well because the government programs are underfunded, but it works more smoothly according to her.
You are suggesting that it is important to look at all the workable alternatives and I agree that is the key. We already provide healthcare to all citizens but some must be bankrupted to get it. Our system is costly and inneficient and yields poorer outcomes than many others. Reform of some sort will be necessary.

Government is the entity which forbids the use of unapproved treatments. Government does not allow the use of experimental treatments even when a patient’s doctor might otherwise recommend it. In the land of the free, our government forbids medicines and treatments which are readily available in other parts of the world. And our government, the government of a free people, threatens those people with imprisonment if they attempt to lessen their suffering and improve their quality of life.

A case in point is the medical use of marijuana. Government forbids its use despite the fact that many suffering people claim to experience a better quality of life. People are suffering and, even though many are facing terminal illness, government is protecting those people from the harm that improves their quality of life.

Furthermore, take a look at the red tape and roadblocks that government puts in the way of advancements in health care. It takes years or even decades for drugs to be approved for use. This is expensive and the end product ends up being expensive or not even profitable enough to put through all of the testing and finally bring to market.

In addition to red tape in the drug industry we have government, through zoning and other regulation, controlling which services can be offered at which locations. A case in point is the bill, currently making its way through the state legislature, which extends the moratorium on construction of new radiation facilities. Why do we restrict the availability of services while, at the same time, claiming that there is inadequate availability of services? I would guess that it is to protect the profits of the existing facilities.

If you take a closer look, government is no better than an insurance company. In many ways government is part of the problem and your health care will not be perfectly perfect whether you, an insurance company, or the government pays your medical bills. The cost/benefit decision still has to be made.

The real difference is that this plan forces some, against their will, to participate. That is wrong.

I realize that any rant is pointless unless I offer what I believe to be a workable alternative, so I instead suggest a non-governmental voluntary association. Perhaps a health care cooperative or a fraternal organization. Something that can better tailor itself to the needs of its members. This leaves you with a choice and does not put you at the mercy of the politicians. If you look around you will already see such organizations. I’ve seen some advertising themselves as Christians helping Christians and other such slogans. Perhaps, if you’re so inclined, you can even find a group of Atheists helping Atheists.

It is really a matter of looking for people with common interests and objectives, not common geography. They’ll agree with you much more often. We need to stop looking to government for a solution and, once again, start looking to ourselves.

As for the discussion about “the ‘car-buying’ model of health care”: When Sen. Mary Olson says, “When I talk to people on the ground and patients… The idea that they are going to go and cost shop for a doctor is so out of touch with how we actually access health care, especially in rural communities where we are lucky if we can even get in to see a doctor,” she’s right. But is that because of some deficiency that would be solved by further government intervention in our health care system? I don’t believe so.

Above, in the comments, Ron Thiessen writes, “It is disappointing that the vote was straight party line. This is a decidedly non-partisan issue.” No, sir, it’s most definitely not. Sure, maybe “making our health care system work better” is a matter people of all political stripes can support, but that’s not what is at issue here. They’re discussing how to do that, and that’s a matter over which there is clearly a wealth of disagreement. Because government intervention in anything, particularly health care, is in no way a non-partisan issue.

And in closing: Yeah, what Westover said.

http://www.emahu.org/legislativecommittee.cfm

Please keep messages involving pitchforks, tar and feathers, and logs as a method of conveyance out of town, courteous and to the point.