Reforma sanitaria (II)

Los periódicos españoles son penosos. Sólo los calificativos de tercermundista con los que El País califica la sanidad norteamericana son suficientes para dar una idea del nivel de desinformación que manejan. El paradigma socialista no puede entender que alguien no quiera comprar algo (seguro sanitario) y a esa libertad la llama tercermundista.

Curiosamente, hoy, en Cuatro la cadena de televisión de Prisa, ponen House, la serie en la que el protagonista es un desagradable médico. Veo el hospital, cómo son las instalaciones, los medios, la forma de trabajar y, salvo el antipático House, el resto no me parece tercermundista. Será la propaganda de Hollywood, ya tu sabes.

Me convence más el argumento de Ron Paul, un conservador que fue candidato a la presidencia y que es famoso por sus libros The Revolution y End the Fed, que tengo pendientes de comentar aquí. He dicho conservador, que en EE.UU. son los que defienden los principios con los que fue fundada la nación, los que quieren volver a los principios de los padres fundadores y retomar el espíritu que impulsó a los federalistas, principalmente su desconfianza sobre la acción del Estado.

Frustratingly, this legislation does not deal at all with the real reasons access to healthcare is a struggle for so many – the astronomical costs. If tort reform was seriously discussed, if the massive regulatory burden on healthcare was reduced and reformed, if the free market was allowed to function and apply downward pressure on healthcare costs as it does with everything else, perhaps people wouldn’t be so beholden to insurance companies in the first place. If costs were lowered, more people could simply pay for what they need out of pocket, as they were able to do before government got so involved. Instead, in the name of going after greedy insurance companies, the federal government is going to make people even more beholden to them by mandating that everyone buy their product! Hefty fines are due from anyone found to have committed the heinous crime of not being a customer of a health insurance company. We will need to hire some 16,500 new IRS agents to police compliance with all these new mandates and administer various fines. So in government terms, this is also a jobs bill. Never mind that this program is also likely to cost the private sector some 5 million jobs.

Of course, the most troubling aspect of this bill is that it is so blatantly unconstitutional and contrary to the ideals of liberty. Nowhere in the constitution is there anything approaching authority for the Federal government to do any of this. The founders would have been horrified at the idea of government forcing citizens to become consumers of a particular product from certain government approved companies. 38 states are said to already be preparing legal and constitutional challenges to this legislation, and if the courts stand by their oaths, they will win. Protecting the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, should be the court’s responsibility. Citizens have a responsibility over their own life, but they also have the liberty to choose how they will live and protect their lives. Healthcare choices are a part of liberty, another part that is being stripped away. Government interference in healthcare has already infringed on choices available to people, but rather than getting out of the way, it is entrenching itself, and its corporatist cronies, even more deeply.