Bill Clinton, Thank You Medicine! Not Heath Care Reform
-
Former President Bill Clinton, now in a New York City hospital room, under observation for chest pains, may be thinking to himself that it’s a good thing that Clintoncare didn’t pass in the early 90s. If it had, it’s a safe bet that the sort of technological innovation that is trying to keep him alive tonight would certainly never have advanced as far as it has. Clintoncare, after all, was about rationing; The explicit goal of that bureaucratic program was to reduce the cost of treatment, which is to say, reduce the amount of treatment. And Clinton needs more treatment, not less. As do many of us.
Moreover, Clinton, now 63, might also be silently hoping that Obamacare never passes, either, due to the fact, as he now understands, he is going to be a huge consumer of Serious Medicine in the many years ahead.
By Serious Medicine, I mean such procedures and technology as open heart surgical treatment, stents, and angioplasties. These technology hardly existed a half century ago, but they are now routine. Indeed, on “NBC Nightly News,” on Thursday, Robert Bazell said that a million Us citizens right now have stents. That’s a million lives saved, or at least dramatically improved.
Precisely how does all that happen? Exactly where did this life-saving technology come from? A lot of it came from government-funded research. (Note to ardent free marketeers: Government is not the enemy.) But life-saving research came from the part of the government, i.e. the National Institutes of Health, that fosters research and even cures. It’s great work that they do, and yet as we all know, the far greater government effort in recent years has been the effort for “health insurance reform.” Indeed, the entire political class, on the right as well as left, seems transfixed by the issue of health care finance. But the real issue is health. And the real question, for heart disease and everything else is, “Can we cure it or not?”
By contrast, “health insurance” is simply much less critical to Americans, if certainly not to American politicos. If you have heart disease, you require therapy more than you require insurance. Both can be important, but treatment is more important. Treatment is the sine qua non–without which, nothing.
So heart patients can be thankful that other people in the earlier cared enough to do heart study–and yet those heart patients would be even more grateful if they knew that someone was effectively researching not only treatments, but cures.
Happily, the liberal health insurance crusade keeps losing, in the 90s, and today. But we may well worry that even the losing crusade may be adequate to cast a shadow over healthcare study, for heart sickness and for every other medical topic. That is, even the mere hint of government-driven rationing and price-controlling might be enough to chase venture capital into other fields, away from medicine. We’ll never know for sure how much “crowding out” of medical money has taken place, but it must be substantial. That’s another question for Bill Clinton to think about tonight.
And so, too, for all of us to think about. Because the bell that could be tolling for him will be tolling, as well, for every American. But better later rather sooner.
Other Junk You Might Like!
Related Ways to Take Action:Tags: alive tonight, Bill Clintonheart diseaseNew York CityNBCHospital Photo Credit To FreakingNews.comlife-saving technologyventure capitalhealth care financehealth insurance reformhealthcare studyliberal health insuranc, chest pains, explicit goal, former president bill clinton, free marketeers, government effort, health care finance, health insurance, health insurance reform, heart disease, national institutes of health, NBC, nbc nightly news, open heart, President Bill Clinton, robert bazell, safe bet, stents, technological innovation- From Dean's List To Near Death From Toxic Mold = Help This Student Find A Lawyer In NY To Take His T
- Casting Call - Are You Making Heart Healthy Choices?
- Social Networking for national Heart/Brain Emotional Regulation Research Center
Related posts










February 13, 2010 am28 1:58 pm
Great post. Kennedy and Clinton both would be ineligible for treatment at their age. Why do so few see the rabbit hole here? Sorry about the play on words – had to do it.
Bruce K.