A Pounding of Prevention

Something occurs to me when I consider the continuing stream of objections and proclamations of doom from the Republicans. The basic argument seems to be that a national health care system would bankrupt the nation and destroy the competition that drives much of medical innovation. To this moment I've been guilty of the same fault I tend to accuse other people of; I've assumed that the logic ad validity of my view has been absolutely, unavoidably, unmistakably obvious. Well in figuring the opposition for asses, I've doubtlessly made one of myself. On that basis, let me lay out the argument.

An Ounce of Prevention is Worth A Pound of Cure

I would assume that when discussing health care, the above needs no explanation but such an assumption may be my basic problem. When we say this, what we mean is that it is often less costly in terms of both expense and effort, as well as time, to prevent or curtail some malady, trouble, complication or other upset before it becomes greatly injurious, compromising or debilitating. Why does this matter? Because very often the cost of correcting the problem after it reaches a critical stage is far greater, even to the point of being itself debilitating.

Case in point: Because Justice Ginsburg's tumors were found and treated early, her prognosis is excellent and she was able to resume her life and her post. Had this been allowed to fester, she would likely have wound up hospitalized and consuming the resources of the hospital in what would very likely have been a terminal care situation.

So how does this translate into national health care? Short version: Lots of people are not getting the kind of health care that would keep them from becoming ill in the first place, thereby adding further burden to the over-all system when they do finally succumb. Furthermore, a great many uninsured people are being treated in emergency rooms around the country and tax payers wind up footing the bill. Now since these people are already costing the public, the most basic argument runs, we ought to try and reduce that cost. The two best immediate actions to do this are A: keep them from misusing the ER to get care without producing payments up-front and B: get them into a good health care program that will prevent them from reaching a critical care status to begin with.

Will this still wind up costing tax payer dollars? Yes. Will it reduce the amount? Also yes.

The net result? A reduction in the amount of wasted public funds and health care resources. This is by no means a perfect solution. Until we can somehow legislate perfect health, anyway. So, what about innovation, competition and advancement of medicine...or, profit margins. Whatever.

As always, the people being financed by the health care industry are prepared to tell you exactly why introducing a new competitor into the competition for health care dollars will destroy innovative competition. They will then ask you for money. Again.

This is something that I simply can't wrap my head around. How does introducing another, cheaper, non-mandated health insurance provider hurt the industry? Seriously, it sounds very much like the current batch of insurers simply don't like the idea of someone coming in and offering the exact same product at a substantially lower rate. Why could this be? Perhaps because they simply don't want to lower their rates and cut into their profit margins. I can sympathize, but that doesn't change the hypocrisy of free market proponents arguing against competition.

Also, exactly how does the issue of where the money to cover care comes from intersect with the issue of medical research? The last time I checked, medical science development didn't occur in the clinic, it happened in the laboratory, the overwhelming majority of which aren't involved in patient treatment. Clinical trials don't start until well after the patents are in process. The drug and bio-tech companies aren't affected at all if the hospitals contracting their products are paid by X or Y. So how does national health care cause the cure for cancer to spontaneously move to China?

Short answer? It doesn't. So the whole faux patriotism angle is basically as reliable as the typical Mexican T-bill. Speaking of which, I wonder why the US drug companies aren't looking south for new research talent...

In any case, with a modicum of luck, this post might just spare us a few more arguments. Pass it on people.