Is rationed health care what we want?

I grew up this way, through the Navy system, and it is pretty good. As a Marine dependent, and later Marine, I think our Navy medical people did very well maximizing care as money resources went down and our married percentages went up along with all of our children from the same marriages. There were long periods when I never saw a doctor, but corpsmen are pretty sharp, especially the Chiefs, and I always appreciated being able to speak with someone who spoke English as a first language. And I did not die, and was always treated, and it was free to me. All in all, not to shabby. And never did combat coverage suffer.

Now that I am retired, I can also use my Champus medical benefits voted by our Congress, which one doctor wrote me, as in writing, was the worst benefits program he had dealt with, and by the way, send him the payments for his big bill as an assistant anesthesiologist to a normal birth of a baby. I even went so far as to take a day out of my life and go visit the Champus advisor, who told me to suck it up. In retrospect, I wish I had been asked about whether to accept an “assistant” anesthesiologist, but that did not happen, and my training and instincts are to back up the local person making decisions on the fly. So I paid the bill, and still resent the insulting tone of his letter.

In the same vein, I met a doctor friend who had to use his American radiology medical training and hospital contract to make judgmental decisions about what the X-Rays suggested. He really resented lawyers who could take days dissecting his more quick judgments, all well intended and honest. In other words, much of his income went towards insurance payments for lawyers suits, and he too still resents the insults.

In the same, and last, vein, I have served and worked with real American leaders who back up the rationed Navy health care system. Even a Marine Colonel and Chief of Staff of a Base had to wait 18 months for a knee replacement surgery and follow on treatment. I was so proud of him for not taking advantage of his position and rank, but just being a normal member of the naval service, as in get in line for his turn.

Is that what we want for all of America. While I doubt it, it is being advertised in the present election campaign as saving monies by “grouping” us together to gain the advantages of economics of scale, albeit without lowering standards and schedules and doctor opportunities. If a voter believes that, then there is free land to buy, or some other “something for nothing” electoral gimmick.

What it really comes down to is: do we want to live forever? Should those Americans who want to live forever have the rest of us pay for extending their lives, even if they have to wait 24 months? If we go the national health care route, are we willing to let politicians and medical administrators tell us what they are willing to pay for, or let us die for? More simply, when the health budget cuts come, what will happen? Will we die quicker, will the taxpayers bail out quicker, will the voters change, or will the doctors who cannot make money leave.

Answering the question about rationing health care to save money begs the question. Just who’s money are we trying to save? And why? There are other alternatives to old people’s health care and saving monies than government health care. Thank goodness we voters are in charge, in the end. And while I like and still applaud the Navy system, many other fellow Americans may not.