I need to say...

A couple of months ago someone I know and love put a video on their blog. It was a special comment by Kieth Olbermann about the "myth" of death panels. (If you watch it, don't forget to catch part 2.) If you recall, during the debate over health care, some supposed that there would be "death panels" created to determine whether or not a person was deserving of the expense of the medical care called for. Opinions about the possibility of these "death panels" were passionately expressed, including that of Mr. Olbermann. His father is in the hospital for an extended stay because of his health issues. A particular night stood out in Mr. Olbermann's memory wherein his father was in serious pain and distress. The concerned son and the physician consulted together and made some decisions about pain medication, etc. that eventually relieved the elder Mr. Olbermann's distress. This, says Mr. Olbermann, is what a death panel really is. Just concerned parties responsibly and jointly making decisions for the good of the patient. Far from the scary specter of a disinterested and distant collection of nameless faces dictating life or death. My fellow blogger posted it and expressed her agreement with his point of view, as his situation echoed her experience during the death of her mother from cancer. It is very hard to refute very emotionally-based expressions of opinion such as this. I heartily disagree with the idea of state mandated health care, and even more with a state-run, state-mandated health care system. Due to the highly emotional nature of this video, it had a serious impact on my thinking, and I have had it in the back of my mind for months, thinking about how the story told and the opinion expressed affected my own.

Starting a few months back, I have been observing a situation that developed with some friends of mine, and it stands in sharp contrast with Mr. Olbermann's experience. A friend's husband wasn't feeling well last December, went to the doctor, and was diagnosed with acute lymphoma. He's young, maybe thirty, self-employed, with a young family. Because of his employment situation, he qualified for Medicaid and went into treatment. He didn't respond to the chemotherapy and radiation as well as they would like, and his physicians recommended a bone marrow transplant. However, the board that reviews such things decided, based on his overall response to treatment, that his prognosis did not warrant the expense of said transplant. He was denied. Never mind his doctors recommendation. Never mind his determination to beat this disease. Never mind his family and their need for a father and husband. Even if treatment extended his life by only a year or two, think what that would mean to his 7 and 5-year-old. Another year or two is an eternity to these kids. Their memories of their father would be so much more clear if they could grow just a little bit older with him. Think what those few years would mean to the wife who is right now carrying his youngest child. Even a year would allow him to be present at the birth of his child, to share that experience with his family. What would you give for an extra year with your loved ones? Can you put a price on it? The odds were against his recovery, though, so Medicaid declined to cover the treatment. If he could pay for it himself, he was welcome to get the transplant, but with a $30,000 price tag, that was impossible. If he had private insurance (at least my insurance), the insurance would have had to pay. The contract requires them to pay for covered expenses based on doctor's recommendations. But not Medicaid. There is a faceless panel of persons somewhere looking at numbers and making life or death decisions for this family, and they decided his life was not worth the expense.

That, Mr. Olbermann, is a death panel. And that is what we fear.

Mr. Olbermann says his father has Medicare, like my friend, plus some supplemental insurance. They were both covered by the government, but if I had to guess which of the two above experiences would be more likely in a government-run health care system, I would say my friend's situation would be far more likely. We all know how efficient large government entities are, right? We've dealt with them. And therefore I say, emphatically, "No thank you!" I'm not interested. Let me be responsible for my family.

I do agree that change is needed in this country. First: Overhaul the insurance business to allow for freer access by the general public. Get the government out of the pockets of the insurance business and quit protecting insurance with endless regulations and controls. Allow more free-market competition into the business, because if there is a profit to be made from running an business well, someone will be there to make it. It is the stifling regulation that keeps insurance business free from innovative, efficient new-comers. Get the government OUT and allow the free market to dictate what kinds of insurance the people want. Government needs only ensure that contracts made are contracts honored. Second: Clean up the Medicare/Medicaid industry so there is a safety net available to those who, for whatever reason, cannot afford private health care. But it should be viewed as the unemployment system is viewed, as a temporary measure, something available when needed, but only for a short time, to help until one can take care of oneself again. Third: Allow those who are arrogant enough to ignore the need for insurance to fail. If you are gainfully employed and choose not to have insurance, that you should be forced to accept the consequences of that choice. Perhaps you will get cancer and subsequently not be able qualify for insurance because of that pre-existing condition. Then either you go without treatment, or you go bankrupt trying to pay for the treatment you couldn't afford. But that choice, that gamble, was yours. If insurance is affordable and readily available and you choose not to avail yourself of it, then I say too bad.

This post may well be moot at this time. We'll have to stand by and see how the pending lawsuit about the constitutionality of requiring citizens to have insurance coverage goes. The system as it stands is broken. It needs serious overhaul. But I honestly see the alternative that is being forced upon the American public as more frightening than what exists now. Please don't force me into a system that allows me no choice, that dictates not only what treatments I can receive, but also what treatments I cannot. Let me choose for myself. That's the freedom I want, and the freedom I am constitutionally guaranteed.