Why Do We Hate Universal Healthcare??

As an LDS, white, college graduate, living in Utah and being related to die hard Cougar fans, I am a black sheep when it comes to political views. I am usually pressing my own mute button during family discussions with the words, "Obama", "Taxes", and "Socialized Medicine". But because of the blessing of the blog, I will be deactivating the mute feature and letting you in on my views of such contraversial things.

A major pet-peeve of mine is the opposition to universal healthcare, or "socialized medicine" as it is referred to in my more conservative circles. I have to propose an objective and fair question to those that are in opposition. Where does the implementation of a universalized healthcare system take us that would degrade society and our current standard of living? Let's look at some elements of this issue before we decide on an answer.

Before someone should be allowed to decide where they stand on this issue, they should answer a very loaded question, is the access to healthcare a right or a priviledge? If it is the latter, only those that have been either blessed with sufficient financial security or those who have earned that same financial security by the sweat of their brows should have access to all our health care system has to offer. If you believe in the former, you believe that access to all forms of treatment is as universally secured as freedom of religion, speech, and other contitutional guarantees.

Having answered that question, you now have a new one. How do those that provide health care services, ie doctors, nurses, hospitals, receive compensation? How much should they receive? As a soon-to-be medical student I will be incurring roughly $250,000 worth of educational debt over the next four years of med school. I may be incurring additional debt as a resident if I decide to defer payment of school loans until after I have completed residency. I am banking on the commonly recognized fact that as a practicing physician, I will be making plenty of money to pay back those debts and still live very comfortably. I would even dare say I can most likely live more "comfortably" than 98% of the world's population. Will I deserve that type of compensation for my services? Is my educational debt a good enough excuse to keep my salary so high and your medical bills so burdensome? I want to give you my opinion on this issue.

Historically, physicians were more often very respected and appreciated members of any civilized society. Even in the tiny villages of remote jungles had their revered medicine men. In the end, all we have in this life is our life itself. Take everything away from me but my life and I'm still here, living on this planet. We always hear, "at least he's healthy" or "at least she has her health." We value our health above most anything. It's clear that the services of a health care provider are almost priceless. However, we have made it very clear that "priceless" is not a great way of getting a doctor paid at the end of the day. My own ,semi-educated opinion is that a physician renders one of the most if not THE most important service we can get from another human being, but he does not need to be a millionaire or drive to the hospital in a Ferrari. At the other end of the spectrum I don't want my doctor worrying about his financial situation and living paycheck to paycheck while his worry should be completely bestowed on myself or my family member. So how do we decide on a price? Even though the price should reflect how valuable we see the service, it does need to be in a certain realm to make it affordable. Affordable for who, you ask? That brings us to the first question again. Should only the richest of us be able to live after an accident? Should only the wealthiest of us be able to give their children a long, healthy life? I'm going to give that one a big'ole WWJD.

So who deserves healthcare? In my opinion, everyone with a heartbeat deserves healthcare. Not just the wealthy or the well-connected. But how do we compensate doctors when not everyone can pay for their "priceless" services? Are doctors to render services for free? Well a WWJD won't work here because we are, unfortunately, still subject to the natural man and the "natural" way of things. The answer is not if the individual can pay but if our society can pay. Compensation is due for the service, we all agree on that whether we like it or not. But we certainly don't like the idea of shelling out our hard earned money to provide healthcare to not just perfect strangers but possibly to strangers that are deliberatly neglecting their health and getting away with it because we are covering the check! How just is that? The hard-at-work and the ever-responsible man should feel a little jipped in having to take care of the ever-irresponsible and slow-to-work guy across the street. Where is the justice in that?

I have struggled with the justice of universal healthcare. I do believe it is a right, not a priviledge, to receive treatment. But I don't believe that a right to health care allows the right to neglect one's health and become a burden to society.

The Future is Pluripotent!!!!

Well as I was reading a little about the semi-disastrous state of the stimulus package put together by some of the most impressive economic minds of our time, I ran into a gem of information! President Obama, of whom I am a big fan, in response to a question about the current ban on stem cell research, "the president promised to sign an executive order to do so. Obama said he wants to coordinate with House and Senate leadership to craft an executive order - based on science, fact and reason -- strong enough to avoid a quick reversal." (CNN.com)

What does this mean for us? My support for stem cell research is based on my complete, unwavering belief in that a fertilized egg that is allowed to divide until there are 64 cells is not at all a life, a person, a living organism, and especially anything that has the "right to life".

The religious resistance to this belief is pervasive in our American society. The majority of us are God fearing individuals that see this life as a gift from a superior being. With life as a gift we are taught to respect it and preserve it at all costs. But the real meat of the debate comes when we try and nail down the moment in time where nothing becomes something, when nobody becomes somebody.

With out addressing all points of view, something everyone should research before you think you have a strong opinion about something, I would just say that I believe that true human value is achieved sometime during the third trimester. I feel that it is morally wrong to abort a fetus after 20 weeks but I still think there isn't enough developed to support a spirit yet.

With the cells produced within the first week of development, we have something absolutely amazing. The cells produced are not liver cells, nerve cells, skin cells, or any "type" of cells. We call them pluripotent cell which means they have the potential to become any type of cell our body needs! You could say that kids are pluripotent because their whole lives are ahead of them and the possibilities are endless!

So what's the big deal? Here are a few things that we want to know. We want to study these new cells to learn the secrets of how the cells decide to differentiate (become specialized cells). Learning that mechanism would enable us to take adult stem cells and push them into the right direction. If a diabetic needed new pancreatic cells to correct the insulin issues of his disease, we would take some stem cells from him and push the cells to become pancreatic cells. But the real beauty of this is that the cells would not be rejected like transplants are nowadays. They would be genetically identical to the person! We also want to learn how to get the cells to become specialized but also to create the entire organ, like a heart or liver. We are a long ways away from doing anything like that though. But curing diabetes could be a very real possibility within a decade or two.

All this can be realized with enough research and trial and error. Federal support of reasearch is so powerful. Money is what keeps people working. The brilliant scientist still has to eat and take care of his family. Funding for research on stem cells will catapult the USA into the exciting future of medical miracles such as cures for genetic diseases, therapy for paralysis, and could give us unimaginable possibilities for extending and improving life everywhere. I'll have to type something less "bloggy" about stem cell research if enough people want a good educational paper. I'm just so excited that we have a president with the right mentality for this kind of issue. He said "he'd rather do what's right and serve one term than just do what's politically good and be a mediocre president and get to serve two terms." I'm diggin that.

The Beginning of Bloggerton

I assume that the best way to start a blog is to blog about something. I haven't really prepared for this but I have been thinking about somethings. This is a paper (not a long one) that I wrote for my genetics class.

When people hear the word “clone” what are they picturing? Most likely, their image is heavily influenced by science-fiction movies about a race of human copies that do everything exactly the same. We are, in fact, surrounded by clones. Some of us are even related to clones! Monozygotic twins are 99.9% genetically and physically identical. But nobody who knows a pair of twins would ever say that they are the same person. It is the beauty and tragedy of life that our environment plays such a strong role in our development. Even genetically identical twins think differently, play differently, and fall in love with different types of people.
So if a cloned human being is as much of an individual as you or I, why do so many people and organizations continue to ban the practice of human cloning? In my research I have determined that the strongest arguments against cloning are very well founded. The risk of developmental problems and the inherent misery of living with debilitating disease of the clones are what drive educated opponents of cloning. That cloning is far from perfected is the strongest indicator that we are not ready to risk a human life in the name of scientific advancement. Some oppose cloning saying that it is playing God, and over-stepping our non-God boundaries. Some believe people should only be created by conception (sperm and egg) and that no other method is allowed.
Whatever the ethical debate determines over the next few decades, the fact remains that so few people would ever desire or have the money to clone themselves or have a clone of a family member that the slippery slope issues that arise in philosophical circles will not have enough fuel to be realized.

So what is the big deal with cloning? I could almost be okay with manufacturing anencephalic organ donors! The cloning thing is actually not as ethically interesting unless the technique is imperfect and results in disease and disability of the cloned individual. But it is tied to stem cell research which I am also a huge believer in.
In the end, I am proud of our species for even considering the ethics of our advancements. We are getting exponentially more knowledgeable about our bodies and our world. It would be a tragedy to step into the frontiers of scientific discovery without seriously considering not just whether we can, but whether we should. Something that our species will have to wrestle with, something that no other species on earth will have to wrestle with, is when we have the ability and technology to do something, we have to decide if we are ready to accept the consequences.