What the hell does "access" mean?

For those of you who haven't noticed, 'access' is used as a kind of keyword to justify any number of statist interventions in our economic decisions. You hear it a lot these days in the health care reform debate. The notion being that government should guarantee universal 'access' to health care. But what does 'access' mean in that context?

I think it's a deliberate equivocation. Those using the term are generally trying to evoke the image of people being blocked out of participating in society for unjust reasons - class, race, religion, etc.... This kind of discrimination is a powerful meme in the American tradition and goes against our fundamental values of equal rights and egalitarian government, as it should. But is that really what's going on with health care? Are people being denied 'access', or is it just that they can't afford as much health care as they want?
 
For those of you who haven't noticed, 'access' is used as a kind of keyword to justify any number of statist interventions in our economic decisions. You hear it a lot these days in the health care reform debate. The notion being that government should guarantee universal 'access' to health care. But what does 'access' mean in that context?

I think it's a deliberate equivocation. Those using the term are generally trying to evoke the image of people being blocked out of participating in society for unjust reasons - class, race, religion, etc.... This kind of discrimination is a powerful meme in the American tradition and goes against our fundamental values of equal rights and egalitarian government, as it should. But is that really what's going on with health care? Are people being denied 'access', or is it just that they can't afford as much health care as they want?

It's about costs and many who don't work or don't have health insurance can't afford routine health care. No one was denied emergency care, but without insurance, people don't see doctors and instead used ERs for care. Many people did not have emergencies, but opted to get routine treatment for colds and such by going to the ER.

The reason for the high costs of medical care is largely because of government interference. They wouldn't allow competition across state lines for insurance companies and they forced employers to provide coverage, which unfairly tied people's coverage to their job. Government insurance, meaning Medicare or Medicaid, covered the poor, but doctors and hospitals were never paid the full amount and were expected to eat the difference. Of course, costs went up elsewhere to make up for it. Insurance companies were paying bigger and bigger bills to cover what government programs didn't. When a person had good insurance, the bills were insane. Paying $15.00 for an aspirin tablet and exorbitant costs on virtually everything was a result of government forcing hospitals and doctors to accept lower payments from Medicare. Of course, Medicare fraud was a huge problem for a long time and private health insurers were paying even bigger padded bills. Had government stayed out of it and allowed competition, prices would have gone down as companies. doctors and hospitals competed for business. The private sector has the ability to make money and still offer deals to even the poorest of people. Big government doesn't go for that shit.

The left seems to believe that not paying for something is the same as denying access to it. For example, how many times have libs claimed that if you don't pay for women's birth control or abortion, you are denying it to them.

Medical care would be much easier if people could find jobs and health care was cheaper. So, the liberal solution was to illegally pass a job killing bill and making health care even more expensive. And they don't understand why people don't like it.

The access that concerns me is the real-time access that government has to our money, thanks to a provision in Obamacare.
 

Forum List

Back
Top