Healthcare Reform - Yay or Nay?

So it's 2010-- and we seem to be at the cusp of another turning point within American history. No great public reform has gone down without those who are adamantly for it, and those who are equally opposed. I'm reminded of the stories about social security and medicaid-- both fought with vigor, and both now a mainstay within American pop culture (popular culture, that is). Anyone care to share their views or express there love or hate for the touted "public option"? Personally, only having limited knowledge about the program, I am for it. Why? Because it promotes competition-- if for no other reason. Say Aetna has the monopoly on Health Insurance in the rinky dink po dunk town of "Blessed, MI"-- being the only "option", Aetna has no incentive to compete with their prices, and as such, there's no public control over formularies, over premiums, you name it! There's simple no incentive to "do the right thing" so to speak. But what this new bill provides is competition. With the new public option, there is now an incentive to compete. This means lower prices for you and I (in the long run) and incentive to provide services based on local competition. Republicans will have you think it's an expansion of medicaid. On the contrary, as far as I know, it has very little in common with medicaid. In fact, it has very little in common with the European system of healthcare-- which many have expressed their concerns over. By providing free healthcare ("free" meaning taxed), Europe has effectively strained the system by providing too much access to healthcare. We in healthcare know there is an unholy--- forgive me, the exact wording evades me. But there seems to be a connection between cost, access and quality when it comes to healthcare. You can definitely aim for one with no regrets, but trying to attain 2 or 3 is difficult, if not impossible. Meaning, you can have quality and access, but cost goes up or you can lower costs, but access or quality goes down. In this case, the European system guarantee's access to all-- which is suffering? Surely not cost, although I hear taxation for it is in the double digits, but quality has definately suffered. This mean long waiting lists, appointments far in the future for even routine screenings. Fear not, Americans fought long and hard to be free of the European way (or to at least pick and choose what we like and do not) and this is no different. A public healthcare option is just a way to give those who cannot afford health insurance an option, AND those who cannot AFFORD health insurance an option-- possibly two because if the only AETNA in their town decides to compete, they could easily beat out the government, in the words of Rod Roddy, "if the price is right". Please feel free to open dialog if you agree or disagree.

Hello cyberworld! My name is Darrell.. I go by pilldox online. I'm your typical everyday "guy next door" who has found an interesting fact in the world of medicine: people respect you more when you give them the unabated truth about their life, their health and their circumstances!
Think about-- if you're a person with diabetes who lives off a gallon of Haagen Daz nightly and you know it's *killing* you, do you want the "fluff" facts spit out by most care providers, who tap dance around the truth, or do you want the honest truth?

As a 6th (and final - yay) year student pharmacist, I've learned that most people want the truth-- which is almost a direct contradictory to how medical practitioner's are taught to deal with the public. Here I offer you my honest advice-- with no claims of being an "expert" or "authority" on any certain disease state, but rather, a common man with a little insight.

Feel free to ask me what you will-- I may not always have an answer to your question, but I promise you this: my answer will always be the unabated truth tailored to your unique circumstances!

In His service and yours,

pilldox