This is still an issue that matters to me a great deal. I know that I am blessed to have had health insurance for most of my life. I know that I am blessed to have amazing coverage and a family with good enough health that we haven't needed to use it for anything major. I also know a number of people who haven't had insurance for a good part of their lives, and a number of people who have been hurt by this when issues came up. This is why I am in support of a system that, somehow, provides health insurance to everyone.
Yesterday, I watched this video, an advertisement for Rick Perry saying that he'll repeal ObamaCare, as well as an article about Rick Santorum who believes that not having health insurance doesn't kill people. Recently, I've heard that cheers have gone up at the idea of not treating someone who shows up at the hospital and can't afford treatment... just letting them die.
All this reminds me of my persuasive essay. All this reminds me even more of an assignment we did before writing our persuasive essays - we had to write a satire which argued the opposite point of our persuasive essays, as a way of playing with our opponent's arguments. For me, that meant writing an argument against health care. It scares me, looking back, how much the points that come out of the mouths of the Republican presidential candidates sound like the points I made in my satire. This is why I decided I wanted to post my satire here today: because suddenly, it's actually relevant to politics.
So... here goes. I made some changes for the sake of grammar and readablilty, but the ideas and structure are still exactly what I turned in on January 3, 2008 - four years ago, and just as close to a presidential election as we are now.
Dear Editor Waggleman,
The issue of national health care is one which has been hotly debated in the Times Journal Tribune Courier Reporter of late. Since this discussion has been heavily and unreasonable biased, I decided I would like to add my two cents to the conversation.
Many of your readers believe that America should have a health care system similar to that of Canada and England, where all medical procedures are free for everyone. However, this system is very impractical. Nothing can ever be done, because every procedure needs approval, freezing the health care system as ill patients wait for lifesaving treatments. In America, we are concerned because almost everyone needing an organ transplant dies waiting for it. In Canada and England, the problem is much worse… even people in need of a procedure as routine as a quintuple bypass surgery die waiting for the government to approve it.
Those believing that we can solve our health care problems by restricting the price of medications and procedures show equal folly. What they do not realize is that the restriction of prices prevents the formation of new medications. The money for researching and forming important new medications comes from the money spent on existing healthcare. If we were making an effort to limit prices from the early beginnings of healthcare, we might still be using spider webs to stop heavy bleeding and lobotomies to cure people of irritability, both of which have since been proved dangerous and potentially ineffective.
Since the current ideas are so obviously useless, I would like to propose my carefully thought out and extremely logical healthcare plan. This plan will eradicate all possible problems with our healthcare system. It will eliminate any need to worry about the healthcare of the less fortunate classes. It will also lessen the unemployment rates, teacher shortages, and negative environmental impact of our society.
First, I must remind you of the importance of research funding. The importance of innovative medical technologies is something widely agreed upon by our nation, but it seems few of us know where this technology comes from. In order to have the latest technologies and advanced medical treatments, research must be done. This research needs to be funded. If more funding is available, then more research can be done, and, thus, more technology will be available to the public. This funding generally comes from the profits of the major medical companies, such as Krankheit International. Therefore, we should not restrict the cost of our current medical treatments, so that greater amounts of profit can go towards research. Even better, companies should be encouraged to raise their prices, in order to incur the greatest amounts of research funding. Therefore, we can provide the best treatments to our entire population, in order to keep them as healthy as can be.
Furthermore, it is quite clear that the insurance companies are an inefficient way of funding health care. They are biased institutions who only grant good coverage to rich people. Even if one is rich enough to get coverage, they often don’t actually receive the coverage without a large amount of hassle Can any one of us honestly say that they have never endured problems with their insurance refusing to cover some procedure, or being unreasonable in their demands? On top of that, many people, especially those with dangerous jobs or hobbies, are unable to find health insurance companies who will actually insure them. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to have healthcare like the other average citizens? Firemen and policemen are just as important as office workers, and yet, due to their dangerous professions, it is harder for them to find insurance. Therefore, I think that the government of the United States of America should ban insurance companies, and severely punish all who attempt to form them.
This, as I said previously, will benefit us greatly. With every procedure charged at full price, only people who are wealthy enough to deserve the life granted by the procedure will get it - which obviously means only the hard working among us will get treatment for what ails them. Thus, poor people will eventually be an extinct race, and we can rid ourselves of the blights on our society: the lazy slum dwellers who can’t find a job, the homeless people, the illegal immigrants, the unemployed, etc. This will be quite helpful to us, and remove many of our problems. Food shortages at food banks, for example, will be eliminated, because no one will be there to need the food. Many other shortages will disappear as well: Teacher shortages, because there won’t be as many kids to teach, and water shortages, considering that less people will be using the water. We also won’t need to pay for welfare, because anyone who would have been eligible will shortly die.
Finally, environmentalism has been another hotly debated topic in the Times Journal Tribune Courier Reporter. Many people think we need to be kinder to the earth, but many others say that is not financially a good decision. This plan is perfect: less people=less pollution. Less trash will be produced, fewer cars driven, and less carbon emissions released into the air... with no negative impact on the economy!
Who says there’s no such thing as a perfect plan?
A caring citizen