I recently endured a dental emergency. I won’t go into the gruesome details, and I’m just fine now, but the whole process reminded me of a rant I’ve been meaning to put to paper.
We hear much hew and cry against the concept of two-tier health care. There are those who predict the collapse of the entire medicare system if those with the means to pay are allowed to bypass the public system for tests or other procedures.
I say two-tier health care already exists.
My dental emergency wasn’t minor. I was in extreme pain to the point I was probably going into shock by the time I got it under control with some codeine-laced acetaminophen. The problem needed to be dealt with, immediately.
Fortunately my dental care is covered by an excellent benefit plan, so I’m not out of pocket for the procedure needed to relieve my pain and restore me to a functioning state. But what if I didn’t have such coverage? Could I choose not to have the procedure because I would have to pay for it? I could, but I would be reduced to being a completely useless member of society and the resulting infection would probably have led to even more health care issues, such as a heart disease. Several online sources back up the notion of a direct link between untreated dental decay and coronary artery disease.
So, if I’d had no coverage, I would have paid and I would have been paying for health care.
Prescription medication is another cost those without health care benefits must bear on their own. Those with chronic conditions, who choose to not purchase the necessary drugs, will certainly endanger their health.
The same goes for vision. I’ve worn glasses since I was a teenager. At that time I needed my distance vision corrected. Without the glasses I would not have been able to read the board at school, drive a car, operate a camera or, given my general clumsiness, even walk around safely.
Now in my 50s I need a complex system of eyewear to get through my day. I have one pair for computer work that are bifocal so I can read the computer screen as well as printed items. The other pair are tri-focal for distance, mid-distance and reading. Given their complexity, those two pairs of glasses are expensive.
Again, would my health suffer if I made the decision to not wear the glasses. I believe so. For one thing I’d probably be on welfare as I would be unable to earn a living, putting me somewhere on the poverty line. There are myriad studies linking low, unstable income with poor health. I’d probably also be depressed without a challenging and interesting career to enjoy and without being able to read books, newspapers, magazines and the computer screen.
And if I was to forgo the cost of regular eye examinations I would be running the risk of developing a serious disorder, such as glaucoma, which, if left untreated, can result in blindness.
I’ve also worn hearing aids since I was 20. Now there’s a costly habit. I admit I can’t think up any direct health risks for walking around deaf, but I know my quality of life would be nothing to brag about if I decided I was no longer going to foot the bill for hearing equipment.
Two-tier health care already exists. Those who argue against more downloading of health care costs on patients should alter their arguments to reflect that.
