Healthcare is complicated...

Which is exactly why we need the discussions going on right now. The Daily Dish has been having a great conversation about this and this reader's response was really interesting.

The problem is that this is one of those issues in which various sides of the argument make a lot of sense. The reader above makes a great case on terms of the rising cost of health care being due to the rising cost of innovation and the notion that all people should have access to the latest and greatest medical technology. Which leads us to another argument that, yes, actually all people are human and have the right to live - health care should not be subject to means. Even if you believe that all people should not have access if they can't afford it, it's very hard to make that case without sounding like, well, a jerk. It's starts out innocently enough -- if you can't afford it, I'm sorry but it's not free it must cost someone something -- I mean, if you walk into a jewelry store with $50 bucks you're not walking out with a diamond. To compare human lives to a jewelry store (or any type of market) is kind of hard when you realize that you just said that some lives are worth more than others.

So, then we find ourselves in another argument relating to the "it must cost someone something" line. In other words, okay fine everyone should have access to health care and it's hard to define degrees of health care so then how do we pay for that? Well then we've come full circle to the original argument. So you look at it another way and if we can define "health care" any differently. If the main cost is innovation or the drastic pace in which treatments gets more advanced and more expensive can we look at that any closer? The cost associated with new techniques is usually related to the costs to develop it (R&D), once that's paid for it becomes one of these "older treatments" because it's not only had the R&D phase paid for (or patent worn out) but it's also been in market for a couple of years with no horrible, unexpected side effects so there is a "tried and tested" appeal that develops. It's now standard. Is there a way to limit access just during the "R&D payment" period? If we ended up with public health care, like a lot of other government programs (and health insurance companies) could we establish tougher guidelines on treatments that were available to those with 'public' health care? Of course, it does seem vital that an alternative private insurance "choice" was still available. Then to eliminate too much push back regarding the class wars and how those without the means would still not have access to 'cutting edge' treatments, grants and assistance programs could be established. Treatments that are just expensive because of the actual materials required would probably still need to remain expensive because no matter how you try you can't limit the rising cost of those because as more treatments become 'standard' the number available will only increase resulting in increases in cost. Damn.

Okay so health care will continue to be a HUGE cost but that's if the requirement for health care remains at it's current level. These days the prohibitive cost is enough to keep most people from seeking treatment until they're pretty far gone. Result? More expensive treatment. So, treatment is expensive, prevention is not. Prevention! There is another side of the argument we haven't looked at yet (other than 'preventing' universal access to cutting edge treatment). Regular doctor visits, dental checkups, etc. are cheap and often help catch ailments before they become a problem allowing for natural or pharmaceutical intervention before expensive treatment is needed. Pharmaceutical? Ugh, now we're back to expense aren't we? As easy as it is to demonize the drug companies, like any innovation or new product there is R&D that must be paid for. Someone has to pay for it so who will do this? The patient? The government? The insurance companies? Surely no one expects pharmaceuticals to develop pro-bono and it seems a no brainer that while government shouldn't' be forbidden from development, private sector will remain a key player.

We could go on and on and people are but as long as we keep the discussion going I know that we will eventually find a solution. It won't be perfect but it will be better than what we have now.