Politics

Author: Richard R. Tryon and others

CC and Medicare
by Richard R. Tryon

One of the most amazing issues of the current campaign for president in the year 2000 is the one brought up as another evidence of liberal concern for the poor. Rising prices for ever more sophisticated prescription medicines gives the perfect opportunity for liberals to come forth and state the we must not deny such care to the poor, just because they have not saved enough money to purchase same! The Gore campaign has seized upon this element of medical cost as one that needs to be included as a federal government financed ‘entitlement’. In other words, if you have not conducted your life so as to set aside savings sufficient to buy medicine when you need it, you should not be denied! Uncle Sam will pay with cash taken from those that saved enough to pay the taxes needed to provide the cash for you. After all, isn’t such a good way to help redistribute wealth in ways that eliminate disparity? Besides, health is an emotional issue. Imagine what it is like to be poor and need expensive medicine not necessarily for you but for one of your many children?

The Clinton-Gore years in the White House have almost made it a daily routine to remind us of the agonies of being poor- especially when children are involved. How convenient for Gore to come forth in the campaign then and put forth ambitious ideas for such protection. Think of the aged suffering for lack of funds! But, even worse, think of the millions of children (most of whom are not in need of medical care and treatment) who have no insurance! Wonder at the problem of buying their medications, when such are needed and the parents spent their cash on other more important items or not so important items. How can a compassionate conservative let the little innocent children suffer?

Obviously the compassionate conservative can not be cold and indifferent to such a situation. But, does that mean that the Rx should be free? Or does it mean that the cost should be shared in some way? Service to the community is one way for poor parents to pay for such support. Another is to pay for some or all of it out of future income, after the crisis has passed. It is not necessary to have the federal government buy all of the prescription medicines produced, store them and distribute as well to all who are protected by such a program.

This is a fine example of how liberals focus on a problem and create a sweeping solution for all that is only needed in part by a few! Doctors used to do ‘pro-bono’ work the way some lawyers still do for patients who needed medical attention but could not pay for it. Now the HMO has removed the doctor from the opportunity to do so save in a peripheral way. The doctor may see a patient and not charge, but the HMO that employs him may not agree to waive such other charges as lab work, and other processing. So, we set the stage further for a massive federal program like the one that Hillary Clinton tried to push through Congress in 1993.

The compassionate conservative hears the lament of those who do not plan ahead, or learn enough to command a position where they can save against emergency expenses- especially when they have no reason to save and every reason to spend all earnings on whatever pleases them or seems to be needed. Most in need of special help are not dying of starvation or hunger. In fact, they drive new cars, own new TVs, etc. but they do not have left over cash after they leave the bar or liquor store. True, some are not in this category, and we need to provide a helping hand when such persons get into an unexpected medical emergency. But, we can prefer a program of help that is not universal or designed to make yet another inroad into human lives. An inroad that ends up with all individuals beholden to the government for all human support save the minimal amounts available for discretionary spending.

So, we see in the election that millions will be asked to vote for ‘free’ Rx, at someone else’s expense! Those who oppose it will be labeled as uncaring conservatives trying to protect the money of the rich in ways that ignore the poor. My message is simple: Surrender all such concerns to the care of the bureaucrats and you will one day find that you have accepted something that is not different from that which millions of Russians finally escaped. It is called slavery to the state which will be happy to take your money and pay some of the bills to help you, albeit in ways that they determine- not you!

This liberal solution is well meaning and full of good intentions; but it fails to address the problems correctly. The first task is to gear help to those that are indeed victims of bad luck and need a helping hand and realize that they need to make some quid pro quo sacrifice to pay for their momentary good fortune; and the second is to realize that it is important to improve one’s position so that seeking temporary help is not needed. This is called taking responsibility for self!

Not all will learn to do this. These folks should not be encouraged to apply for more benefits aimed at increasing their proclivity to reproduce and multiply the size of the total problem. The liberal notion that all should have a right to reproduce without taking responsibility is an idea that leads not to the elimination of the problem, only the multiplication of it. Liberals tend not to let such a detail stand in their way. Compassionate conservatives want to help those that need the help to not only appreciate it but find ways to compensate for it and then to avoid the need for it.

Bottom line is that we must accept that the most expensive medical care and drug treatments may be too expensive to give to all. Some may have to accept generic drugs and less than full access to the latest technology aimed at helping those that can pay. At the same time, we must not ignore the plight of the poor, especially those that show a willingness to respond to such help with something other than a complaint because they were lead to expect such care as an entitlement.