What Will Be The Personal Penalties of Health Care Reform

Any article or interview regarding health care reform, I tend to pay attention to these days. The potential legislation that may be rushed through the government in upcoming months is frightening and overwhelming, especially with so many questions remaining unanswered and so few specifics, if any, provided by anyone on either side of the debate.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was interviewed on Meet the Press, the video of which can be found in sections at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/ns/meet_the_press_online_at_msnbc

Although host David Gregory didn’t seem to receive direct answers to his questions, many, such as myself, were certainly left without the direct answers we were hoping for and needing.

Sec. Sebelius spoke of the need to reduce costs, but seemed unwilling to either acknowledge or admit to the potential accuracy of reports that claim that health care reform suggestions may do the opposite. Vague and circular answers, which are the norm in any health care debate, were provided, and little more was known when the interview was over than before it had begun.

But, Sec. Sebelius hit upon an area where questions and concerns have been high when she briefly mentioned personal responsibility, lifestyle, and the rationing of medical care. Rationing is currently occurring, according to Sebelius, which I interpreted as meaning that rationing would also occur under any new reforms. Yet, without specifics, what type of rationing and who would be subject to rationing has yet to be determined.

If someone is overweight or if they have a certain medical diagnosis, will they be expected to lose weight before being covered; will they be denied coverage because of the condition; or, will they be penalized in some way such as with fines or higher out-of-pocket costs?

Will the government ration health care for people who eat a diet that the government does not consider healthy? What about someone who smokes? Drinks a glass of wine at night? Eats dessert on the weekend? Doesn’t exercise regularly? And, if so, how will they know?

What if a person merely chooses to reside in a section of the country deemed less healthy than other areas? Will this increase the possibility of rationing if they become ill?

If a person has a condition that is considered terminal, will they be viewed as being too much of a cost burden and ignored, forgotten, or forced to go without treatment, without medication?

If anyone is rationed, but particularly if it is an elderly person or anyone with a terminal illness, will the government encourage and pay for assisted suicide?

What about abortions? Will abortions be paid for under health care reform and, if so, will they be subject to rationing based on the particular situation or data regarding the individual?

What about age? Will age be a determining factor in what type of care or what group receives rationing?

What exactly will be rationed? Medications? Doctor visits? Hospital stays? Medical tests?

And, perhaps even more importantly than all of these and similar questions, who will decide who is unimportant enough to have any form of their health care rationed, withheld?

Rationing is a frightening concept, and it hardly seems a humane way to cut expenses.

So, we must ask: What, exactly, is the government trying to accomplish? Is it simply to make certain every American has health care coverage? Is it to cut medical costs for everyone? Or, is it to achieve a healthier America?

I have neither heard nor thought of any practice that could insure every American or possibly cut medical costs for everyone without the government becoming a business that controls the medical choices of medical professionals and patients. It seems quite contradictory that the government that is meant to represent and serve the people could also be a business with a bottom-line of making a profit off of those same people in such a manner that it may ration a segment of that population in the name of finances.

But, if the primary goal is to achieve a healthier America, then the government has two paths to take. Along one path is great control of the individual choices of American citizens, penalizing people for making lifestyle choices that disagree with those of the government, thereby controlling each individual’s diet, exercise regime, and personal health habits.

But, along the other path there seems to be great potential progress. By making whole foods more available, more affordable, then healthier—safer—choices could be made on the individual level without government control of those choices. By limiting the amount of pesticides or chemicals on or in food, immune systems might be strengthened. By enforcing truth in advertising and labeling laws, more accurate information would be available to aid consumers in their choices. Individuals could make healthier options if accurate information regarding health, food, and health care was available to consumers without being skewed by lobbyists or salesmen or pitchmen. If the actual goal is to create a healthier America without reducing the freedom of Americans, then there are many such avenues the government could pursue.

Which brings me back to square one. What is the ultimate goal of the government when they discuss heath care reform? And, what are the personal penalties that Americans will be expected to pay?