MCN | Medical Consultants Network

The Power of a Second Look

Home / MCNTalk / Tag: 2012 Election

Viewing items tagged:

2012 Election

Follow up: Scott’s Story and the Election

By Vanessa Radatus

After last week’s article, “A Possibly Fatal Mistake,” by Nicholas Kristof, a number of responses prompted further discussion on the issue of health reform and our upcoming election.

In a follow-up column, “Scott’s Story and the Election,” Kristof provides two counter arguments acknowledging those who do not agree that it is the government’s (or their) responsibility to take care of the millions who are unable to do so themselves.

His first argument reflects the basic idea that we must accept that imperfection as not only our present reality, but our human destiny. That is why our government has created safety nets in our laws and institutions to prevent and mitigate human error. Kristof states:

“First, a civilized society compensates for the human propensity to screw up. That’s why we have single-payer firefighters and police officers. That’s why we require seat belts. When someone who has been speeding gets in a car accident, the 911 operator doesn’t sneer: “You were irresponsible, so figure out your own way to the hospital” — and hang up.

To err is human, but so is to forgive. Living in a community means being interconnected in myriad ways — including by empathy. To feel undiminished by the deaths of those around us isn’t heroic Ayn Rand individualism. It’s sociopathic. Compassion isn’t a sign of weakness, but of civilization.”

Kritsof’s point should not be neglected. Does not every American citizen feel that our government is somewhat responsible for keeping our nation’s people safe? Why then, do we have government-created agencies like the FDA, the FDIC, and Social Security?

Because we as a nation have learned from our past and humans make mistakes. And if we have these institutions to act as safety nets for our food, medicine, and money, shouldn’t there be something to act as a guard rail to protect our nation’s health?
Kristof’s second argument is that if you don’t believe in universal healthcare because you don’t want to pay for the mistakes of the uninsured, you are already paying for them, only, at a higher rate.

“My second argument is that if you object to Obamacare because you don’t want to pay Scott’s medical bills, you’re a sucker. You’re already paying those bills. Because Scott wasn’t insured and didn’t get basic preventive care, he accumulated $550,000 in bills at Seattle’s Swedish Medical Center, which treated him as a charity case. We’re all paying for that.” Read More…

So as our last presidential debate airs tonight, watch it. Become an informed voter. Try not to be persuaded by a candidates looks or demeanor but rather by his ideologies and how he will try to make our country better for everyone, rich or poor, old and young.

If you would like to learn more or follow Nicholas Kristof, visit him at his blog, On the Ground, or join him on  Facebook and Google+, watch YouTube videos and follow him on Twitter.

Health Reform: A Matter of Life and Death

Access to insurance is a matter of life and death for some.

In this poignant New York Times column, “A Possibly Fatal Mistake,” Nicolas Kristof tells the sad story of his childhood and college friend, Scott Androes, who made a bad choice and may pay with his life.

That choice was not purchasing health insurance when he was marginally employed and realistically able to do so. For Scott, like many Americans, the thought of buying an individual policy in a high risk market seemed too expensive and unnecessary.

But after months of warning signs and a trip to the emergency room later, Scott realized how costly taking that risk would be. This year, he was diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer and a treatment plan that is upwards of $550,000. It would appear that his days are numbered.

In his piece, Kristof compassionately writes about the bigger picture of this issue and how health care reform and politics play a major role in individual stories like his friends. He characterizes one presidential candidate’s philosophy, opposed to most of the health care reform proposals, as seeing this outcome:

“…as I understand it, is that this is a tragic but necessary byproduct of requiring Americans to take personal responsibility for their lives. They need to understand that mistakes have consequences. That’s why, he the candidate, would repeal Obamacare and leave people like Scott to pay the price for their irresponsibility.”

Kristof goes on to say:

“To me, that seems ineffably harsh. We all make mistakes, and a humane government tries to compensate for our misjudgments. That’s why highways have guard rails, why drivers must wear seat belts, why police officers pull over speeders, why we have fire codes. In other modern countries, Scott would have been insured, and his cancer would have been much more likely to be detected in time for effective treatment. Is that a nanny state? No, it’s a civilized one.”

The key point that Kristof makes is how crucial it is to put our partisan bias aside and consider the millions of U.S. citizens who are currently affected by our broken health care system. Which presidential candidate will actually work to fix and prevent stories like this after the election?

“So as you watch the presidential debates, as you listen to those campaign ads, remember that what is at stake is not so much the success of one politician or another. The real impact of the election will be felt in the lives of men and women around the country… Our choices this election come too late for Scott, although I hope that my friend from tiny Silverton, Ore., who somehow beat the odds so many times already in his life, will also beat this cancer. The election has the potential to help save the lives of many others who don’t have insurance.” Read more…