Once again, as it has periodically since 1946, a specter is haunting America -- the threat of Universal Medical Coverage. This time courtesy of Senator BHO.
Opponents correctly and commonsensically worry about the cost of any such program. No doubt it would be immense, and increase steadily over time. They also express very serious and very sensible concerns about the quality of care under universal coverage. A very recent thread in this fine forum tried to explore this very topic, and got me to thinking, and I think I have solved the problem.
[the thread : http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=67853&boardID=39&page=1]
My plan starts from a bedrock conservative position -- it is an individual responsibility to provide medical insurance for oneself and one's family/loved ones/life partners. Truer words were never spoken, and i cribbed those. And it's often forgotten in our uber-individualistic, licentious times that the failure to live up to one's responsibilities, in many spheres of life, is a dereliction which can be a matter to be referred to the courts for correction.
So, to ensure that everyone provides for his and his loved ones' medical insurance needs, I propose to bring the coercive arm of the state to bear. Failure to purchase medical insurance is to be criminalized, with punitive fines and incarceration as the penalties.
Yep, this sure will concentrate everyone's mind wonderfully. The thought of being tossed into Attica or Pelican Bay or Stateville because one was too feckless or too cheap or too lazy or just couldn't get his shit together to purchase medical insurance, and consequently having to deal with daily ordeals like dodging gang rape in the showers, surviving racial brawls in the exercise yard, and the many other challenges of everyday life in a Hobbesian subworld among persons you would not normally deign to share the planet with, is sure going to get this problem solved. I mean, WTFs a few thousand bucks a year for a bare-bones medical insurance plan if it's going to spare you any of that?
So, how's it going to work? Simplicity itself. When an uninsured person becomes ill enough and is in enough pain, the threat of prison be damned, he's going to drag himself to the nearest emergency room and hope for the best. Inevitably, it will be discovered that he is uninsured. Just as all gunshot wounds have to be reported to the authorities, all uninsured persons will likewise have to be reported to the authorities. From there, it's a short trip through the criminal justice system and then a stay in the appropriate Big House nearest to the ailing malefactor.
Still, there will be hugh costs associated with this policy, but nowhere near as great as Universal Medical Coverage. There obviously will have to be expansion in the criminal justice system on both the federal and state levels. A lot of additional prisons will have to be constructed and staffed. But some of this can be offset by the fines levied against the convicted uninsured. For incarcerated single parents, the gov't will have to assume responsibility for the care of their minor children, so orphanages can be expected to make a swift and dramatic comeback. They likewise will have to be built and staffed.
It won't be cheap, but it's still going to be cheaper than the economy-destroying threat of Universal Medical Coverage.
Is this proposal too radical? Nay, not at all. We're declaring war against the medically uninsured and the medically indigent. I'm sure a catchy buzzword or slogan can be coined easily enough to capture the essence of the proposal and make it very acceptable to the public. I mean, WTF, we have a Global War On Terror, we've had a War On Drugs for most of my lifetime, and look how well both of those have worked out. As you read this, you are no doubt enjoying the many bountiful fruits of of those policies. A war against the chiselers, the social parasites, the scammers, the con men, the layabouts, the fraudsters, the tricksters and the irresponsible who have the absolute unmitigated gall to fall seriously ill on the public dime, well, it's an idea which is long overdue and whose time has more than come.
There can be no doubt that this policy can be enacted and can be effective, though again, start up and operational costs will be nothing to sneeze at. This country has shown it will spare no expense to protect itself against foreign enemies, real and imagined. Nor will this country spare any expense to insure domestic tranquility within it's borders. So those many whose physical frailties and economic marginality make them a threat to the soundness and future well-being of the US economy will just have to be dealt with in an unforgiving manner. Tough Love on a nationwide scale. I mean, we can live with ourselves if we do this, and I expect few consciences will be troubled, since these drastic measures have to be taken to protect the future soundness of the American economy, and we can all sleep easy knowing that these folks will be getting medical care during the period of their well-deserved incarceration.
Look at it this way if you will - peeople are born, people die. In between over the course of their lives they fall ill from time to time. Even in the absence of medical treatment, most people will get better and heal via the natural processes of the human organism. For those less hearty souls who demand medical intervention, well, let it be on their dime, not on the taxpayers' dime. We must make a choice as a society: physical health or fiscal health. We've got 300 million+ people in America, but we've only got one economy. I say the demands of fiscal health win out by a country mile, and then some, over the demands of physical health.
Yes, this here is change we all can heartily embrace, and god knows it's change we've benn waiting for.
Anatol France said it well, but not in the spirit with which I cite him ; "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."
-- Modified on 8/29/2008 5:39:26 PM
