General Forums > General Discussion

Small Freedoms 4: Health Care

(1/1)

skedoosker:
Here is the last thread I will start on the subject of ways that more freedom, instead of more goverenmental power, might be the best way to empower the 99%.  Once again, this is another exerpt from my soon to be published book, "The American Manifesto: A Unifying Vision."

The next subject to be considered will be the perpetually controversial subject of health care.  This issue best crystallizes the absolute necessity of returning to Local Community Moral Self Government, and the small, personal freedoms to be found there.  Health care is a priceless service, one that all of us need, and one that, in time of crisis, we will pay any amount of money to receive (for either ourselves or our loved ones).  As such, if priceless health care is put in the hands of distant corporations, it will inevitably become a vehicle for runaway greed, and will bankrupt us as individuals.  What’s more, since greed knows no upper limits, if greed is the guide, many of the needy among us will never receive adequate care.
?On the other hand, if health care is put under the control of distant, centralized government, it will probably become the leading edge of totalitarianism.  Once personal lifestyle decisions are connected with the federal budget, the logic will inevitably grow that, in order to keep costs manageable, government officials (who will probably be exempt from the controls) will be empowered to control an ever increasing portion of the lives of the masses.
?The solution to this health care dilemma is to choose the third way, the way of local community.  On the level of local community, wherein individuals once again have the primary focus of their identities based on their place in the community, health care becomes more of a calling, and the community is empowered and behooved to address the health needs of the entire community.  The thinking is that if health needs, especially of the poor, are ignored, it affects the well being of the whole community, so the whole community must respond to those needs.
?Obviously, we won’t arrive at that kind of community based thinking regarding medical care if we move in that direction only regarding medical care.  We can’t expect health care workers to have that high and generous consciousness if the rest of society is selfish and uncaring.  It can only be arrived at in a society where we all have our primary identity based on our place in the community, which is what would happen with the re-establishment of LCMSG.  
Add to that the fact that these same local communities would have power to legislate against unhealthy behavior in ways they presently can’t, and have the power to educate the young about morality in ways they presently can’t, and we can see that this improved architecture of government could successfully deal with the challenges of health care.  What’s more, with a vibrant community spirit aroused, clinics and other institutions could be organized to aid the poor.
More to the point of this section, once we had put the responsibility for health care in the hands of local community, there would be many small freedom ways we could improve health care.  For one thing, if the restrictions of the 1905 federal Food and Drug Act were removed, we, as free local communities, could license health care workers, and allow the sale of medications according to our own standards, and not according to cost increasing, option reducing federal standards.  This would involve other medical schools besides AMA schools, and access to low cost medicines, alternative and herbal remedies, medicines from other countries, or even going without the present system of prescriptions.
One particular case will fill in some of what is being proposed here.  When a person has a crown on a tooth, it is cemented into place.  When it comes loose, a person has to go back to a dentist to have it replaced.  The cost can be from free (from a friendly dentist who recently installed the crown) to thirty to a hundred and fifty or more dollars.  Then the dentist cleans out the crown and tooth of old cement, puts in fifty cents worth of new cement, and puts the crown back in place.  The question is why the cement can’t be available for the general public to purchase, and apply for themselves, at their own risk?  Once again, the sorry answer is that we are not that free, as the cement to replace crowns on teeth is not available for sale to the general public.
There are any number of other medical issues that could be affected by an increase of small freedom, from cancer drugs from Mexico to low cost alternatives from Canada and Europe.  And we can play a long game of “why not?’ around the issues of health care such as why can’t we all, as patients, have a personal USB drive, (or whatever memory device comes along) and use it to carry all our personal information.  Go to a doctor for a checkup, and the doctor downloads all new information to your drive.  Get an x-ray, or MRI, or any other diagnostic procedure, and that information gets put onto the drive.  Then you can go to any other provider and be able to give your own information to them, not having to undergo new tests.  Then you could shop around for your own tests or procedures, or second opinions.
Or why can’t we go to a diagnostic kiosk at a Walgreens or CVS, answer some questions, maybe hook up to a blood pressure machine, and get an opinion about which drug to take, or a referral to a specialist.  Those kinds of machines could even be owned by private individuals in their own homes.  Then, we could go buy the drug, and use at our own risk, or go to the referral, possibly via video.  All of this would greatly reduce costs, restore options to the individuals, and probably enhance the health of the nation.
But of course, all this freedom would reduce the cash flowing to the health care corporations, and also reduce the power of the federal government.  It is very interesting and instructive to look at how the federal government has dealt with the issues of health care over the long term.  First, they greatly reduced the health care choices available to the people in 1905, and then, a few decades later, that same federal government started to provide health care to the masses.  Then, when times of budget stress come (and when isn’t that time?) and health services are consequently reduced, the folks clamor, to the point of becoming violent, in calling for even more federal intervention in health care.  So the authorities that took away free choices and options get the victims of their restrictions to demand they get even more power.  Thus goes the spiral of a declining nation.
In the end, health care is a great example of why a community based approach to things is so much better than an elite, top down approach.  On that local level we can risk allowing solutions based on personal freedom, because we will be dealing with each other on a person to person basis.  Moral persuasion would return to its proper, crowning place in human community, as cultural leaders worked to influence their neighbors to deal with issues like smoking, obesity, and other destructive habits.  When care is needed, it can be provided in a much less expensive, much more personal way.

Navigation

[0] Message Index