Recently
I received an e-mail from the Romney campaign pointing out the main difference
between his campaign and Obama’s:
“Mitt Romney's vision for America is an opportunity society, where free
people and free enterprise thrive and success is admired and emulated, not
attacked. President Obama's vision for America is a government-centered
society, where government grows bigger and more active, occupying more of our
everyday lives.”
I
think one of the areas we see this most obviously lately is healthcare.
My
husband has cancer, and like most people in this economy, he can’t help but
worry about job security. Yes, it’s true, I would love to be assured that he
will always be able to get health insurance, regardless of pre-existing
conditions, and be assured that my family’s health care will always be
covered. But at what cost?
I
had to laugh to myself while watching the Olympics this summer. During the opening ceremonies dancers
and performers were celebrating all things wonderful about England, including their
famous health care system. Well, my family lived in England for a while and
experienced their system first-hand.
First,
I will say that it was quite generous of the National Health System to include
us, even though we were not British citizens. However, the NHS facilities and services were a less than
optimal. On different occasions I
had to spend some time in the local hospital with my children. I felt I was in
something from an old , worn-out World War II movie hospital ward. Fortunately,
my children were both fine, and for that I am truly grateful.
But
when I found out I was pregnant, I admit that along with my excitement, I was
terrified. I had heard stories that women were kept waiting in the halls,
delivered their babies, then were sent home right away. When I asked my friends
if those stories matched their own experiences, they said yes. “But, you
wouldn’t want to stay in the hospital more than six hours anyhow,” they said,
“because it’s impossible to sleep in the maternity ward with eight other women
and their babies lined up in the beds next to you.”
I
had confidence in my midwife (at least until she recommended I have my baby at
home), and I must say that most of the midwives in England are highly skilled.
But I was terrified to have a baby in one of the NHS hospitals. I was faced with the decision to either
have my baby at home, at the NHS maternity ward, or fly home and be without my
husband for several weeks to have the baby back in the States. None of those
options was appealing.
Another
option came available—private insurance. We realized our private insurance
would cover the private hospital in London. I could deliver there. I was so
relieved. I was even excited when I heard that this was the finest, fanciest
hospital around; that people from all over Europe went there to have their
babies. Royalty from the middle
east would rent out an entire floor to bring their entire entourage for when a
new prince or princess was to be born.
Victoria and David Beckham were even having there baby there at the same
time I would be! Well, that
clinched the deal.
I
have to say, I had wonderful midwives (and a great doctor who had long since
lost his New Jersey accent and replaced it with something a little more
posh).
But…
Even
with the best facilities in London, I was a little disappointed. I have had
three other children in the U.S., and all three hospitals were much nicer and
better equipped and more comfortable than even that fine hospital my private
insurance covered. Fortunately,
all went pretty well with the pregnancy and the delivery of my third son.
But
I do cringe when people talk about health care reform and government involvment.
I wonder how many people asking for more government regulation or socialized
medicine have ever received health care from a system utilizing those
standards? On paper it all sounds wonderful. But I have lived in various
countries with this sort of government regulated system. And it seems quite
clear to me that when government gets involved, the personal cost may go down initially, but so does the
quality of both the care and the physical resources. And in order to try to get better quality care, the cost
jumps significantly higher.
Who suffers the most then? The poor that the
government was trying to help in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment