A Thought on Healthcare

The debate over the future of health care in America is going on across the country, the main argument centering on how involved the government should be. My answer to that question is: not very much, but more than you might expect from me.

Government's job to is be prepared for the unexpected catastrophe, for things that we otherwise would not prepare for. A local fire department is a good example. No one really expects their house to catch fire, so no one hires a personal fire fighter to be on hand in case it does. However, the government in many cases provides a fire department so that if a house does catch on fire, they will be ready to fight it.

FEMA, though it has performed rather poorly recently, is a good example to the positive role of government. No one can expect or prepare for a catastrophic hurricane, but the government needs to step in and help if it does occur (they need to do a better job than Katrina).

If we translate this philosophy of catastrophic assistance to health care, we can see that it is government's job to protect us from the things against which we are vulnerable - catastrophic disease, automobile accidents, cancer, etc. We cannot in a million years be expected to save enough money to cover these costs, and most HMOs do not help much here.

However, it is NOT government's job to pay for every time we need to visit the doctor. Any cost reductions achieved will be completely nullified by the increase in doctor visits anyway. People will feel that they are already paying for the visit with tax dollars (or wage decreases from rich people paying their workers less to cover taxes), and will therefore visit the doctor at the drop of a hat. Government paying for every doctor visit is equivalent to fire fighters blowing out ever candle you light in your house. People should expect to have minor illnesses, and therefore must factor in these costs when planning how to spend money.