I'm still alive, you?

Well, the whole health care thing has passed. Ask me in five or ten years what I think of it, because it's so hard to say without reading the whole thing. Republicans say one thing and Dems say another. So, let's just discuss some of the general principles and ask some questions.



First of all, I'm totally supportive of helping people get health care. I don't think anyone should have to go through unnecessary pain or death, because we have good enough medical knowledge in this country to help nearly everyone. However, some people don't get it because they can't pay for it. I would like to say that emergency rooms accept and treat everyone. You can get health care if you don't have insurance, it's just costly for you or other people who do have insurance.

Even though I think it's good morally that everyone gets treated, the economics don't make total sense to me. Yet. They might eventually, but I don't understand how requiring insurance will help, as people will still be unable to afford it. Also, forcing insurance companies to insure every person who asks for coverage seems like it would raise prices for everyone. I don't want to sound harsh, but if someone without insurance is requiring million dollar treatments, and they go ask for insurance, is that really insurance at that point? The company is going to pay out a hell of a lot more than the person will ever pay in.

So I'm not going to pass too much judgment on this bill until we have to live with it. I think anyone who was worried that the world was going to end was crazy. I'm sorry to disappoint them, but the fact that the Democrats were finally able to pass something doesn't mean armageddon, and it doesn't make them bad people.

In fact, the consistently partisan efforts are what make Congressmen and women bad. Instead of trying to come up with something good for the American people, especially their own constituents, they work to come up with something that is good for their party. I wish we could get past that and become a country governed by the people, not by political parties and their motives.

Game Changer

The healthcare debate has just been thrown a curveball. On Tuesday, Massachusetts voters chose republican Scott Brown to replace the late Ted Kennedy in the U.S. senate. Brown will be the only republican in Congress from the largely democratic state. For Massachusetts, his election means that their state healthcare program will have a better chance of being left alone. A new federal plan would likely disrupt the program that Brown helped to install in Massachusetts.

Brown, a former model, will be the 41st republican in the senate, disrupting the democratic control over a filibuster by the republicans. There have been rumors that the democrats would possibly rush a vote on healthcare reform before Brown gets sworn-in, but nothing has happened yet, and nothing should. If the Senate were to pass a health care bill in the next few days, just before the Massachusetts senator-elect were to be seated, the bill would be tainted. Who wants a health care bill that only 99 senators were able to vote on. The state of Massachusetts probably doesn't even want a federal healthcare bill, as they already have a state-wide system.

Congress has been debating healthcare for months now, and it seems as if President Obama may finally be expressing some anger that nothing has happened. In the days leading up to the election, Obama pleaded with the voters and with the democratic candidate, Martha Coakley, to preserve the democratic control in Congress. The New York Times said yesterday,

As voters went to the polls, Robert Gibbs, White House press secretary, made it clear that the president was "not pleased" with the situation Ms. Coakley found herself in. "He was both surprised and frustrated," Mr. Gibbs said.

Of course Obama would be frustrated! The center of his campaign was healthcare, and nothing has been done! I would be mad too, but apparently the people of Massachusetts were mad enough to vote in a republican who would staunchly oppose democratic healthcare plans.

Sides of the Healthcare Debate

There were a few things in today's paper that caught my eye today. I try to read the political articles, but more often than not, I skip them. Because they're boring. I'll be honest; they can be really boring. That is, unless they're not. Like the opinion piece on healthcare with comments from both Iowa senators: democrat Tom Harkin and republican Chuck Grassley.


For the most part, the Harkin side of the page was about all the ways that a health care bill would be good for everybody. Mostly that meant that people who don't have healthcare would get it and everything would be all perfect! However, there was absolutely no mention of the costs of the bill, what it would cost people who already have healthcare. Mr. Harkin, I would like to know these figures so that I can weigh the pros and cons of the bill. Please don't try to make me seem stupid by only giving me the positives. (That don't really affect me anyway)

On the other side of the page, our Iowa senator Chuck Grassley made hardly any mention of the benefits of a health care bill, and instead took the financial approach. He made it clear that the bill would cost billions of dollars, adding huge amounts to our already huge deficit!

So there are two issues that I see with this article

First: do we really need a healthcare bill if it's going to cost so much, and mostly benefit only the people without healthcare?

Second: the party divisions around this bill (and every other) is astounding. Just look at the two Iowa senators- they rarely vote with each other on a big bill. Every time I look in the paper at the Congress votes, it's always all the democrats on one side and all the republicans on the other. That is such a shame that two senators, who are supposed to be representing the state of Iowa either can't agree on what the people of this state need, or they simply vote with their party.

I wish our leaders would make decisions that mattered to their constituents, not their parties.

To go or not?

Oddly, an event just two days ago fits perfectly as a first topic. Two days ago, my father went to the ER to be examined for chest pressure. He's fine, which is why I am ok to share this with everyone, and is also why no one should worry. One might think a person with chest pressure, a quite serious symptom, would maybe have someone take them to the hospital, and right away. Not Mr. Irish American Sr. He started feeling it around eight in the morning and didn't go to the hospital until one in the afternoon. If that wasn't bad enough, he drove himself...from 30 miles away.

This is why I would like to pose the question: why do people down-play symptoms that can be quite serious for other people? I think this is a difficult question, as everyone reacts differently to different situations. My dad reacted with worry, but skepticism, and went after a great deal of contemplation. Although I would like to think that I would go immediately, I would most likely do the same as he did. This worries me though. How many people wait to go in to get seen and end up with more damage, or even dying?

Part of the problem may be our hospital system that we have in the United States, and in Iowa. Our emergency rooms can gain bad reputations with long waits, but the truth is, they really know what they’re doing. I volunteer every week in the same emergency room that my father visited, and I know they will do everything they can to make you happier and healthier than when you entered. So I beg everyone in a serious condition who might put off a visit to the ER to just go! This is especially true for anything heart-related like chest pains. They will get you in first, without question. (That is unless someone is on the verge of death)

I guess I just wonder why some humans downplay their medical problems so much, while others totally exaggerate them. The people who downplay theirs are missing out on the chance of improving their way of life by getting treatment. The people who exaggerate them are wasting their time, and congesting the system that some people need so badly. (Enter higher health costs due to people that can’t pay for their worrying) But if I had to recommend a person to be one way or the other, I’m not sure which one I would pick. On the one side, not getting treated can hurt you and others around you. However, worrying too much can also hurt yourself and others.

Odd? I say yes.