Year 2009: Universal Healthcare

The year 2009 is very interesting. Struggles to get out from the economic crisis dominate the news more than anything else. A change indeed happens just like President Obama promised. The issue of universal healthcare has never been out from the top of national hot topic list since Obama took office. It surely deserves a post in this blog.
Background: many disheartening stories in the national news about those chronical and critical ill patients the insurance companies refused to pay for the treatments or for some the rejections came even earlier during the submission of the applications. In U.S., the insurer is allowed to reject the applications based on the pre-existing health condition. Or, in some other cases, the insurance, through their lawyers probably, tries to find the loop holes in the application to avoid payment. Under the Obama's universal healthcare, the companies are not allowed to use pre-existing health condition to reject applications nor to charge different premiums. The government also mandates everybody to get a healthcare insurance, and provides subsidy for those whose income are considered inadequate.
In the most simplistic version, the universal healthcare reform package would consist of these three points:
1. insurance companies couldn't use pre-existing health situation as the deciding factor to reject or to accept the applications.
2. they also are not allowed to charge different premiums, again, based on the health condition, but based on something more abroad like gender or age.
3. the government mandates everybody to take insurance. Otherwise, only those who are sick show up in the insurance offices and caused the insurance an enourmous loss before they are out of the market. This problem is known as the adverse selection.

Pros: This universal healthcare is believed to eliminate the cases of people died because they don't have money to receive proper treatments due to insurance's rejection to cover. The insurance companies will also set an average premium that would be celebrated by those who need regular expensive treatments. The pro-s are also aware that this also means the premiums for some people will increase, especially those who don't have any health problem history. The consolation for those people would be "hey, I know you are paying a higher premium now, but knowing that it will help other people who really need expensive treatments regularly should comfort you. We shouldn't put any money value on human lives, right?"

Cons: Thus, those who are perfectly healthy and young have to purchase the same insurance coverage as those who are sick. It means the government forces to spend some part of income for unnecessary goods. It means those who are already struggling to manage their income to pay for school tuition, foods, apartment rents, or any other necessity goods and perfectly health are having a tough luck. Alright, one more "it means" sentence and I promise to move on. It means, according to government, some people are allocating too few of their income on healthcare and too much on other goods. Is it true?

My stand: while I disagree that the government decides how I should manage my income, I also have an empathy to those who struggle to save the lives whom they love so dearly but got their hands tied due to financial problems. I am also aware that at any point in time everybody could switch places between those two roles (to be those who feel they overpay the insurance, and to be those who really are thankful to be covered by insurance), well, of course exception for those who died suddenly before receiving any treatment. The other side of the coin, those who already struggle just to get the necessity things available but perfectly healthy will feel that their fights for the today's survival are opposed unfairly. So, in conclusion, I have to say I don't know or have no opinion, let alone solutions to the existing problems regarding the universal healthcare, at least until I get more facts to put into consideration.

What's wrong with the world??? Part 2

It seems that the culture is moving toward centralization. We are looking for one person (or one institution) to be the answer for our problems. We eagerly looking up to the sky waiting the "messiah" to come, and when we feel that we've found the messiah, we'll give our devotion to the person. Most of the times, people are lured by the eloquent speech, strong charisma that glared from the body language and, interestingly most of them were relatively fast crawling their way up to the "throne" and anything else that fits in the criterias how a messiah should be.
Hitler was a nobody during the WW I. But, using his excellent rhetorical talent, he gained people's trust in no time. His message is very simple, bringing hope to the Germans who were devastated after the defeat in WW I. Nobody was aware of his ambition to bring Germany to the top of the world was any wrong at all.
I still remember that during the US 2008 election, many people believed that Obama is "the answer." Nobody really knows him before 2004, but yes, only in 4 years everybody fell in love with him without even knowing his background and standpoints. I am not saying that Obama is the same as hitler. But, I don't want us to be blinded by the eloquent speech and forget the essential content of the speech itself.
To make it worse, usually those who follow "the messiah" are not open for reasonable debates or facts. They will just blindly close their eyes and ears for any opposition. Probably, the best way to deal with those kind of people is to be quiet and let time unravels all the glaze around the core message.
Unfortunately, in many cases it is when everything is too late, when the leader already brought them down so low and at that time they will have no choice but to stick with him till the end.
All I can say now is please don't give your trust so easily to those who never prove his/her credibility for a reasonable long period and please be always skeptical to the content and refuse to be swayed away by eloquent delivery.