Conclusion

In closing, I would like to quote a man who dedicated a good portion of his life to solving the ethical dilemma of helping those in need at a personal cost. The late American philosopher John Rawls said, "I have a moral obligation to aid those who are worse off than myself" and "Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all" I am not going to try to determine the confines of these statements, rather I will let you decide. In order to maintain a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" we the people must decide what is best and effectively communicate that to our representatives. No one person can draw up a perfect bill to solve all of our problems, this country has been a joint effort since day one and to stray from that would cause utter failure and the collapse of our great nation. So stay true to your beliefs, protect your liberties and the liberties of your neighbor and we cannot help but succeed. Whatever our country decides on this issue of health care, lets stand behind them and make it work life is about perseverance and if we persevere together we will succeed together. Abraham Lincoln said in one of his most stirring speeches that "a house divided cannot stand" but I believe that the conclusion of that same speech is often overlooked. Lincoln's final words on the evening of June 15th 1858 were, "Our cause, then, must be entrusted to, and conducted by, its own undoubted friends-those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work-who do care for the result. Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. Did we brave all them to falter now?-now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail-if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate, or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later, the victory is sure to come." This should still inspire every American to stand firm, a united front and prevail though all adversity, I can't say it any better than the former president and cornerstone of our nation.

The number of people that are uninsured in America is a serious problem 47 million uninsured means that nearly 16% of all Americans do not receive the care that they need. The health care professionals and America's taxpayers need to take this very seriously and ask themselves if it is worth a few extra dollars to help insure these people. One of the scariest statistics I found at aflcio.org was that 8.7 million children are uninsured which contributes to America's relatively high infant mortality rate. These children have no choice and no say in whether or not the receive care and can do nothing themselves to gain that privilege. Is it not our responsibility to help the helpless when we can? If the government comes out with a bill that requires employers to at least pay for children to be covered without driving down the middle class with high taxes and creating more poverty then I think we should strongly consider it. The problem comes with where the money comes from, until we find a just and efficient way to fund an inflated health care system then we must restrain ourselves and make the best long-term decision.

A few days ago former U.S. Comptroller Dave Walker was on CNN talking about the current healthcare system and reform possibilities, specifically medicare. As it stands now medicare costs somewhere around $38 trillion per year, Walker suggests a budget for this service that would require a reform in the way that we pay our medical bills. Currently there is no budget on medicare in the U.S. unlike most other industrialized nations. The reform in payment that Walker suggests is a shift from payment simply for treatment to payment for the effect of treatment. While this economically makes sense and would certainly lower the cost of care I do not believe that it would function well in the medical field for a couple of reasons. First labor is used for all treatments whether they work or not is out of their control, and they should be payed for their labor. Secondly, with the constantly changing and variability in effectiveness of treatment based on all kinds of individual variables presented by each patient this system would not be just to the medical professionals or the patients. Finally this shift would hinder experimental treeatment and the overall progression of healthcare because new treatments inherently have a low level of effectiveness initially and take time to get better.

As the labyrinth of healthcare gets more and more complex more and more opinions are formed, 'we pay too much for care' 'we pay a good amount for the quality of care that we get' 'our care is the best in the world' 'our quality of care is sub par in even the poorest of countries' etc. With so many diametrically opposed viewpoints with seemingly legitimate backing it is nearly impossible to really understand what is going on. Don't feel overwhelmed, just take in as much information as you can and use reliable sources with viable solutions to increase your understanding. That being said, I would like to bring up an article that i found at the Baltimore Chronicle's webpage that covers the most common accusations of Americas healthcare system. This article is based on the extremely high prices of American healthcare, we are 1.5 times more expensive than the second most expensive country, Norway. According to this article our cost is so high because of many taxes that we pay our doctors and surgeons as well as the inflation of healthcare costs in general, they started high and are only getting higher. This is definitely a problem with American health care if you want everyone to receive quality care and must be fixed in order to treat our growing population. Most people assume that there is a relationship between price and quality (as price goes up so does quality and vice versa). However, Dr. Holtzman disagrees claiming that there is a way to decrease costas and increase quality of care by eliminating pecuniary taxes paid to doctors and increasing primary care. Once again, it is up to you, the reader, to determine if this is a valid claim. The catch-22 is that not doing anything with our healthcare system could cause it to break down, but doing something to completely reform it may have the same effect. While Dr. Holtzman may be on to something and I believe that if there is any way to do what he claims is possible then it should be done post haste, I am highly skeptical of this claim because it goes against one of the most basic economic relationships, that of cost and quality.

Health care for low income families in the U.S. is a scarcity with 53% of low income citizens reporting to be uninsured according to medhealthinsurance.com. This causes a myriad of problems and difficult decisions for low income people and puts them at a much higher risk of serious illness. Uninsured familes are four times more likely to avoid going to the doctor than in insure families because of the cost and many of those families clame that the emergency room is their primary care center at which the mean cost per visit is $3000. Low income families are much more likely to be diagnosed in the advanced stages of a major disease because they do not get regular check ups. All in all the information that I gathered from medhealthinsurance.com showed me that something should be done to provide regular care to low income families. It could be argued that medical professionals have a moral obligation to help all who are in need because they can and are trained to do so. Money should not be the determining factor of whether a person can receive quality care just like no amount of money is worth a person's life.

Up until now I have been extensively covering the conservative point of view on socialized medicine which is adamantly opposed to it. Now I would like to switch gears so that you have an idea of what the pro-reform arguments are. According to an article that I read recently from the Los Vegas Sun by Cynthi Shiroky all of the problems that the right wing associates with government run health care (rationing care, costing more, coming between patient and doctor, limiting access and treatments, denying or delaying care, and being socialistic) are all problems with the current system, excluding the socialist part. Additionally, the aforementioned problems are false pretenses about the proposed reform which claims to be non-profit, cheap, and efficient. I believe that the biggest pro to this reform is that it would not allow people to have their coverage dropped because of a preexisting or a recently contracted illness. If all these things can be promised and work out as its supporters claim then maybe socialized medicine is the way to go. Sure we would have an increase in taxes but in my opinion there is no exchange rate between dollars and lives.

In an article I recently read by David Gratz on the U.S. News website a very grave prediction is made. Gratzer claims that within ten years of the adoption of a public health care option almost all of the private insurance companies will be run out of business because they will be unable to compete with or pay the taxes in this bill. This is a very dangerous possibility that is at this moment killing thousands of people across the globe because they cannot get competent, if any, care. This possibility must be considered and provisions must be made to ensure that the private option will stay around, otherwise the government will be taking away something near to every American's heart, liberty, and not to mention forcing them into a third world level of health care.