concept or reality?

Schwarzenegger has proven many things in his time in office. One is that he is pretty close to fearless, politically speaking. He has taken on his political opponents on numerous issues...no surprise there...but he has also taken on his own supporters on a lot issues...and that does take courage. He has crossed party lines on several controversial issues including greenhouse gases and now health care.

His concept...universal health care...is an outstanding concept. Think about it....everyone being able to live with the mind-easing knowledge that if they need to have something looked at, if they need something checked out, they are able to do so without fear of being rejected over money. I do not see the downside to that concept.

Of course, the reality is...there are major holes. For example, look at the Canadian system, lauded by many in our fair country of how it should be. Of course, the Canadians I have spoken with...including the Portland ambassador when I was taking classes at PSU from Charles White...speak much less highly of it. Their tale runs to what is not covered and you cannot get at any price, about things that should be covered but aren't, about inequities of who pays for the coverage, of the inefficiency, waste, and corruption of the system...as near as I can tell, the only people who celebrate the accomplishments of the Canadian system are those who don't suffer under it.

Also, I would agree with one point made in the article...these "money savings programs" seem to have mathematical issues since they always end up costing more, not less. As Rochester once said in comparing his salary to Santa Anita, ""It starts out looking pretty good, but something ALWAYS happens to it coming around the far turn." Those savings disappear in administrative costs, in re-apportioned fees, in redirected costs, and other similar things.

The truth is, until we have an equitable society where everyone participates in a meaningful way...and that means not sitting on their sofa smoking cigarettes, sampling Budweiser, watching Oprah and soaps and popping out "Who's your Daddy?"s by the dozens, and so forth...and where paths such as stay at home Mother (or, less frequently, Dad), which is a different category...the ones I am talking about actually care about their offspring, take an active role in caring for them...laundry, housekeeping, cooking, seeing they are involved in school studies and extra-curricular activities to ensure a well-balanced life including physical and mental exercise...that is a far different role than the first "mom" I mentioned, where she considers "good parenting" to be yelling, "quiet down, you brats, I'm trying to watch Rosie"....when the REAL parenting is an honored and revered role as well, then we have a positive step towards the ultimate goal of full participation. However, some people will complain that this parent is not contributing...ironically, many of them people who will simultaneously be demanding coverage for the first "parent".

In theory the universal coverage is a great idea we should all be in favor of. In practice you will see exactly what we see here;

"What's the incentive to provide health care?" asked Angie Wei, a lobbyist with the California Federation of Labor. "We're concerned this will erode employer-based health coverage."

Let me give you a couple ideas, waste of human flesh Wei; first, assuming that a universal health care package would have the maximum level of coverage or anywhere near it when large percentages of the population are unable or unwilling to make any contribution is unrealistic, to put it mildly and politely. The truth is any universal health care will, by sheer weight of responsibility, be very, very basic. The incentive is superior health care packages attract better candidates to your business. Only if you are more interested in maintaing lobbying power than in actually making sure the people in your organization are qualified, competent, and actually dedicated to their job would you be afraid of such an obvious opportunity to provide people with an incentive to join your organization in preference to one that uses the basic model. That is like saying, "If we have a minimium wage, what is the incentive to provide a higher wage?"

Ironically, I have a friend who just today e-mailed to say they had accepted a new job which had cheaper, more comprehensive health benefits. There, Ms. Wei, is your answer as to the incentive. However, short-sighted, self-centered people like you will cause huge issues in attaining that goal.

Of course, there is hilarity to be had in the debate, also. Here is a great quote from the same article:

Unions are protesting the requirement that everyone buy insurance,

Uhm...would those be the SAME UNIONS that demand everyone in the shop pay dues even if they don't want to belong to the union? Hypocrisy, thy name is being sung with a thousand voices.Unions have done a lot of good things for the workers in this country...but they have done some pretty counter-productive things such as this, also.

Anyway, to bring a long, rambling dissertation to a pre-mature close, the concept is great and it is my fervent hope it comes to fruition in a way that proves workable, equitable, serviceable, and fair to all without being cost prohibitive. And much like snow in Portland...I will believe it when I am walking in it and not a second before.