The key need of the ongoing health system voting

Reading http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health-overhaul31-2009jul31,0,2426079.story my thoughts: the key need of the ongoing health system voting is for the nation to finance some baseline health level for everybody in the nation, none left out. That baseline health care could be quite low at first, specifying what can be administered to the patient, vs what is excessive cost for benefit for various health issues. Subsequent years could see increases in the baseline health level is specified to be, as the nation prospers more, due to a healthier more competent population. Private insurance options could be had to go above those basic levels to cover more catastrophic health problems; these health desireables could remain as employment incentives for employers and for the wealthy; they could get the heart transplant but the baseline citizen would not be able to do so, for example.

This seems to be compatible with the existing health care system's mode of "allopathic" stance. Then, to get the health level to rise and costs drop greatly, the wider viewpoints held by the whole-person "holistic" or "alternative-complementary" health protocols need to come to join the health system as a full partner, with the operational principle of maximizing the health of all, instead of maximizing the profit to the health businesses; the focus on providing the most efficous products and services for economical health of the whole person, would most likely become the mainstay of health systems when they are fully adopted, with the high-science form of allopathic, pharmaceutical & surgical focused, form of medicine becoming the health arm that handles the tough problems at comparable costs and business earnings.

One of the possible problems of a health system completely controlled by government is that some future administration could then use blockage of health care availability to make life miserable or even impossible to sustain, for politically undesireable foes as decided by that governmental administration, thus a terrible power over the people, democracy no more; much as the interrelated corporate worlds already can blacklist employees who are not of their preferred political stance or even exhibiting independent thinking. Or even more nightmarish scenarios could happen, say some authoritarian administration gets into power for the 4 years, then some catastrophy happens and the admin declares overpopulation and specifies who is to be terminated early, such as those who had not voted for them. Controlling health care availability is one means of doing that early termination thing.

Thus the nation, via government, providing some baseline level of health care to all, with private insurance available to be bought by the customer to take over where the baseline leaves off, seems to have inherent capability to defend against tyrannical militant administrations that happen to get into office at times, as has happened in the past and no doubt will again in the future, hopefully not too soon. The present health care system in America clearly is not working, since there are tens of millions of Americans without health services; it is a very dysfunctional health system, serving the few instead of serving the nation. (Perhaps it basically serves the sickness businesses earnings, which is quite different from serving the American customer.)

Tying wellness to employment (or independent wealth) needs to be seen for what it is; slavery modes are not necessary when the jobs are well matched to the employees to provide them a tolerable compatible job and comfort as the reward for doing the job well.

Again, the key need of the ongoing health system voting is for the nation to finance some baseline health level for everybody in the nation, none left out. That baseline health care could be quite low at first, specifying what can be administered to the patient, vs what is excessive cost for benefit for various health issues. Subsequent years could see increases in the baseline health level is specified to be, as the nation prospers more, due to a healthier more competent population. Private insurance options could be had to go above those basic levels to cover more catastrophic health problems; these health desirables could remain as employment incentives for competing employers, and for the independently wealthy.