Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Nat'l Health Choices

Just now on BBC Radio, Thelma Nixon relates her story of the Nat'l Health telling her that she must lose sight in at least one eye and have the other begin to decline before offering her any assistance.

She is currently paying for her own treatment to prevent that blindness.

Do you really want to be faced with that decision?

Will we be able to afford even that decision in a US plan like that if millions of illegals are suddenly added to the rolls? Or would sight be considered a perq?

This is why the free market must bear on the health care system. Hospitals and doctors know the insurance money is there. The insurance companies know that employers have to offer plans to employees (we're all too used to it now). And the insured will very rarely question costs unless it is part of their deductible.

I am personally torn about the matter because my own mother made use of those tax dollars to pay for her treatments. If that was not possible - and she had not insured herself personally - what would I have done? I tell myself that my social security monies paid for it - since I won't ever get them, she made use of those funds for herself. But that is not sufficient.

And do not get me started on the Ponzi Scheme that is Social Security.

Layers and layers to the problems of today, folks. And there will never be enough taxes paid to cover it all.

1 comment:

Richmond said...

It's a conundrum, no? And I think things will come to a head in the next 10 years or so. Not sure how it will play out - but it will be scary/interesting to watch. Yeepers.