Last week I wrote about the dangers to our health posed by a government-run healthcare system. In that article, I discussed the cancer survival rates in the current U.S. healthcare system vs. nationalized systems in other nations, and worried about the effects a universal healthcare system would have on our medical care.

I received some emails and comments regarding what readers feel are the pros and cons of such a system. In reading these emails from my own readers, as well as listening to discussion by people during the course of my day working in the medical/healthcare industry, one thing seems to stand out. Many people are using the terms “universal healthcare” and “healthcare reform” synonymously. Let me make it clear that the two can be mutually exclusive and one does not have to equate to the other. 

One reader said in a comment, “I don’t think you’ve ever had to deal with the prospect of not having health insurance; otherwise you would understand why reform is necessary.” This statement presumes that I thing reform is not necessary, and I’ve never stated anything of the sort. In fact, I DO believe reform is necessary; I just do not believe it should come in the form of a government-run healthcare system.

There are other ways to do it, which many experts are proposing, but for some reason, everyone is using “reform” interchangeably with “universal” and “public” healthcare systems. The President seems to be closing his mind to other options, and trying to imitate countries whose systems are substandard. One of those countries, let me remind everyone, was left by our forefathers so that we could do things over here, differently and better. (We only have to look at the current government-run healthcare system called Medicare, to see that taking something similar on a bigger scale, would not be better.)

Aside from the attitude that reform can only happen one way - with a government-run plan, there also seems to be this idea that every single improvement needs to happen quickly and all at once. Isn’t that kind of like trying to eat an elephant in one bite, without chewing? I do in fact feel, right about now, that the government is trying to feed all of us a big, gray beast without the benefit of utensils. (And you know, force feeding almost always results in an ugly, regurgitated, puke-colored mess, on both the eater and the feeder). Let’s do our best to avoid that.

Let’s take a complex subject and think of it in simple terms. When a painter embarks on painting a house, would he do it with one, broad-sweeping stroke? Does he hover above the house and dump vats of paint on it all at once? No. He systematically, patiently, and carefully use rollers and brushes, section by section, to complete the job in a quality manner. (Like Obama did in the above photo).

Similarly, imagine the construction crew that built the house prior to the painter coming in. Builders didn’t haphazardly start laying down bricks and beams and throw the building up all in one day. They started with well thought out plans from an architect, and that architect methodically created those plans making tweaks and changes on his drawing board over a period of time until the plan was just right.

So why, in all business areas in the private sector, does common sense reign king when it comes to business and financial decisions, yet in government, no one seems to apply this type of common sense? It is much too vast a project, and far too critical in importance to rush through it as if it’s a boring homework assignment needed to be completed before Congress and The President can go out and play. (With more of our tax money).

The problem is, most people are not informed about what is in the healthcare bills being considered by Congress, and only hear the positive “spin” in nightly news sound bites. But you almost don’t need to know all of the details in the bills to answer these important questions:

1. Would you want the government to be privy to every aspect of every American’s health history and medical problems?

2. Would you want the government to have the power to favor or financially reward or punish, directly or indirectly, physicians who are aligned with a particular political party, if they wanted to?

3. If you think there is bureaucracy, red tape and denials in getting treatments approved with private insurance companies, (which DO have the money/profits to pay for them), doesn’t it stand to reason that there will be more cost constraints, rationing and red tape from a payer (the government), who is currently trillions of dollars in debt, and has no vested interest in pleasing you, the customer, since you have to pay your taxes regardless of the quality of service they provide?

4. If the plan will be so great, why do both bills exempt members of Congress from having to participate?

5. If you’ve ever been disappointed with the quality of service at the Post Office, Department of Motor Vehicles, or public school system, ask yourself why you think the government would run a more complex system of healthcare, any better? And would the same frustrations you have with any of those other bureaucracies be tolerable wher your health is concerned?

Chew on those for awhile, (along with the trunk of that elephant) and I’ll report back soon on how the government’s new concern about obesity relates to proposed National healthcare plans.