Ok, so I haven’t written for quite a while now in my blog. My husband had an accident at work. He fell when he caught his heel on a grate and damaged his left elbow and the wrists of both hands as he tried to brace his fall. The left hand and up to the elbow grew hugely with swelling. Ice, therapy and time have slowly dissipated the excess water but pain from nerve damage is still a big factor and will be a longstanding recovery. At first, between swelling and pain he was unable to do things for himself. Simple things, like tying his shoes or buttoning his shirts was impossible. With the wrappings used to force down the swelling, he could not even wash himself in the shower (a chore he “loathed” to have me do for him, chuckle, chuckle) so I was very busy indeed. During that time I more or less got away from writing the blog. And, so, here I am still encouraging my husband toward recovery while he progresses slowly.
There has been and still is a lot of talk going around about health care issues, and this recent accident has brought such care and costs to the fore. We need insurance to cover us when we become ill or incur an injury. But how do we cover everyone while being fair? I wonder! What is fair? Is it being honorable? Is it being considerate or caring? Is it definitive only of cost, value or responsibility? Some of us earn more money than others; these people can better afford coverage for health issues. But health issues don’t come only to those who can afford it. What happens then? How much should one expect to pay before receiving help from a larger group, organization or society? What kinds of ailments should we pay for vs. the group coverage plan? I wonder!
If we pay according to value who decides what that is? If it is valuable for each and everyone to get a thorough check up every year, should the group, organization or society pay the charge to encourage participation? Preventive care is the cheapest and healthiest care of all. Does a subsequent diagnosis of ailment change the responsibility for payment? What if it is catastrophic, long range or both? I Wonder!
How does the service given play into the requirement for payment? What makes the service valuable? How is its value proved? Does a diagnostic treatment that stops further deterioration but does not return full health qualify as good care? Will legal fees continue to add to the cost of medical care? If the medicine given for one ailment causes another ailment, should the company making the product causing the second ailment have to help cover the costs of the latter treatment? I wonder!
When does the responsibility of the person with the ailment factor the cost of the service into who pays? Should a person with, say a causative problem like alcohol abuse or a heart problem, who does not change poor, unhealthy behaviors and continues to require costly treatments, become responsible for the additional treatments? If so, when and how much? Should payment be required perhaps on a gradual scale? I wonder!
What happens when we live a healthy lifestyle and don’t require regular medical treatments, when our annual physicals show a healthy body with no further treatments needed? Do these people get paid to remain healthy? Can these people be paid to see an ND, Accupuncturist or other alternative health practitioner and have an insurance company not say that it won’t cover that decision? I wonder!
If we look at each other as all of us being members of one society (one human family or one country family) and in this trauma together, can we begin to see ways to help each other and solve this problem together with consideration for each other’s needs? I wonder! Are we capable of such caring for one another with no politics. Can we spend time asking what we can do for one another without thinking of the “what do I get”’s? I wonder!
I’d really like us to try. I’d like our politicians to ask questions with a positive attitude and no anger. What will I support? How can the wording on this document be changed to help more people?