National Health Care

We've got quite a dilemma as a country. We worry over the cost of universal health care, but it's probably something we should have as part of a process of rationalizing the system. Yet the addition of 40 million new customers will pur a big strain on primary care doctors. I reckon there are about 300,000 of those, and if each new client took 2 hours a year of their time, we'd need another 40,000 or so. Massachusetts has gone to universal health care and has this problem. If we pass universal care, this could create problems for baby boomers looking to retire and move to a new location--they might not be able to find a primary care provider--especially since the growing resorts are often heavily populated by uninsured workers and the undocumented. Ironically, it may be easier to get into the emergency room.

So rationing of some sort has to come, because the price of care will likely be too low for many new customers. Many people want ot cut down those expenses that occure in the last 6 months of life. Problem is, we don't always know when the last six months of life begins. Also, we don't want it to be our grandma, our ourselves!

And finally, there's a genuine concern about a "national option" run by the same people who run the post office, with potential for coercive legislation to ensure it's competitive position, bloat its cost, and further redistribute income.

I'm praying the Bue Dogs can resist their own party's attack dogs and move the plan in a semi-rational direction. Semi-rational--that's all I can expect from the goverment these days...