Thursday, January 20, 2005

The Government Says You're Crazy

Yet another reason the government should back out of health care. It should be a privatized system, and if the welfare of doctors doesn't concern you, think about this:

Throughout last summer and into the fall the news crept across websites and spilled onto talk radio: The Bush administration was planning to screen every American child for mental-health problems and put those deemed in need of help on powerful psychotropic drugs. Parental rights would be taken away, and the stigma of mental illness would stain the school records of innocent children.

The report, issued in July 2003, spoke of the benefits of widespread mental-health screening of Americans of all ages. It also noted that schools provide a promising venue for administering such evaluations for both students and adult school workers.

The commission's biggest concern was that efforts to help those with mental illness at the state and federal level were too "fragmented" across different agencies, from the Social Security Administration to Medicare and Medicaid, says Michael Hogan, who was chairman of the now- disbanded New Freedom Commission, and current director of the Ohio Department of Mental Health.

The commission decided that recommending universal screening would be "a little premature and probably controversial even though we thought in the long run, it probably might be the right thing to do," Mr. Hogan says.

Mental-health issues "ought to be moved into the mainstream," he continues, and schools and even preschools "ought to have access to mental-health professionals. It makes more sense to give 16-year-olds an annual checkup of their mental and emotional wellness, and ask them if they're using drugs, than it does to give otherwise healthy young people a physical. That seems to me to be relatively common sense. But we're not ready for that."

For example, between 2000 and 2002, the number of children and teens in Britain taking prescription tranquilizers, stimulants, or antidepressant drugs rose by 68 percent, the article said. It concluded "We believe the use of psychotropic medications in children is a global health issue, which should be studied in partnership with pharmaceutical companies, governments, and researchers." -CSMonitor


Not to mention you should think about the welfare of your doctors since they offer a service not easily replicated, and where would you be without them? Contrary to popular belief, there is no *right* to healthcare. Government control of healthcare makes it more expensive, less effective, and encourages situations like this one where-in government pull is manipulated by one industry to favor them at the expense of everyone else.

4 Comments:

Blogger M.T. Daffenberg said...

I respectfully disagree with you, sort of. You're right about government control, but is it really too much to ask for universal health care--a system where those who can afford it, pay, those who cannot pay get to take advantage of low priced health insurance from the government? There are too many people without the ability to pay for health care in the US to reduce the issue to 'healthcare isn't a right.' Of course it isn't, but living in the richest, and arguably most advanced, country in the world, you'd think we would also be compassionate and understanding. Especially to those in need.

12:09 PM  
Blogger Sarah Beth said...

Thank you for posting your views. My main point is that it is not the government's place to decide when and where we are compassionate and to whom. Private charities are always available and are actually more effective at supporting those who are unable to support themselves, because private charities have a vested interest in the results. Government does not need to be the country's parent, or the country's conscience. Rational adults can make their own decisions about how to donate and who to. It is wrong for the government to spend at their whim on whatever *need* they deem to be the most pressing at the time. The only thing they should spend our money on is our defense. In a privatised system, healthcare would be cheaper anyway, because of market competition, and as it is with government controls of Medicare and Medicaid, doctors are only allowed a certain amount of funds per patient, and they are rewarded if they do not go over budget and punished if they do regardless of what treatment the patient requires. This holds them bound and gagged when it comes to providing appropriate care. Think if the government decided that eating was a *right* and mandated that restaurants provide low cost meals to the underpriveledged, what would happen when everyone decided they needed filet mignon since the govt was picking up the tab anyway.

12:24 PM  
Blogger M.T. Daffenberg said...

Yeah, you posted a comment on my blog a couple weeks ago, and I appreciated the feedback. Thanks for intelligent correspondence.

I think that your argument is very strong--I used to believe the exact same things. Your Ayn Randian/Libertarian political view has its ups, but I felt the path to getting there involved a large upheaval of our present methods--it seemed unrealistic. On the other hand, I admit my socialist tendencies have their own unrealistic expectations. Well, I guess I didn't get anywhere with this.

5:25 PM  
Blogger Sarah Beth said...

Hi Michael, Remind me which site is yours. I don't post very often so I vaguely remember you had something funny I responded to...A White kid buying cigs hired by cops or something? What's the addy? I'd like to check it again but forgot to bookmark it at the time. I'd like to state for the record that my view is my own, and not libertarian, but highly influenced by Ayn Rand and I'm cerainly studying Objectivism seriously, as such I do not want to be aligned with Libertarianism, although I admittedly sometimes reference their work I am opposed to the fundamentals of their movement.
That said, many of the things proposed here would take a huge upheaval and would have to be phased out in degrees, however, by advocating for the abolishment of such institutions I maintain the moral premise for my objections, (as I am learning) and it keeps me consistent, although any step in the right direction I will also praise and welcome suggestions.

5:45 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home