The Ultimate Health Care

The Ultimate Health Care

The ultimate in health care is envisioned like this:

Any body who is sick or feels that there is something wrong with his body can go to a nearby clinic. These clinics are staffed daily with more than one physician and no appointments are required. Health care cards and id’s are checked and the person is seen by the physician on duty. Minor treatments are done there and referrals to specialists and/or private laboratories are made when necessary. Ambulances are contacted when needed. All is done free of charge.

Health records are made on paper by the physician and also recorded to a centralized computer system. All physicians have access to the health care records of all members.This includes all drugs, surgeries, diseases, etc. of the member.

Prescriptions are written when needed  and the person brings this to the pharmacy store which is then filled up. The government health care system, most probably the State Insurance System, is billed 80% and 20% of the charge is paid by the patient, or Blue Cross or any opted private insurance company.


Whenever the total costs paid by  the State Insurance are over that which is collected from the members, this portion is billed to the Federal Government which then transfers funds to the State Insurance. The Federal Government Health care should have allocated some billions of dollars to each State before the pilot version was initiated, anyway. It will be a matter of a centralized accounting system between the Federal Government and the States. The whole system will be much dependent of this centralized computer system as regards member information and health data. This system is dedicated and not even the intelligence community can access this info.

As regards member privacy? Oh come off it—if you are sick, why would you be concerned about your privacy?

By the way, after the pilot version is over, Federal government takes over control and regulation of the system. Why? To the Federal Government is dumped the responsibility for the Health care of the people, and pays for the expenses as required. The State becomes the operating arm of the Federal Government, as is supposed to be.

Much, much money is to come from the Federal Government on the initial introduction of the pilot version. There is expected be be a deluge of people going to the clinics, especially of those who have delayed going to see a doctor due to high expenses. The premiums as dictated by the government according to the standardized schedule of fees laid down by executive orders will be drastically reduced and people will take advantage of this. Finally, the lower income people will be able to see a doctor with gusto.

It is also expected that there will be opposition outcries from the physicians, the private insurance companies, and of course, the Democrats, who will again resound their motto—–thet there will be millions of Americans who will die because of this new health care act.

The private insurance companies will act as the option for extra and complete health care for the members. People may also opt to get private health care insurance if they can afford it, but the ease and convenience of the Federal-State health care system would be the better choice for the rest of the people.

I should add that the system I proposed here IS A PUBLIC HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. For how else can the Federal Government be in complete control of the system if there are private entities involved in having a piece of the action.

Is this a subsidized, socialized medicine? Close to it, but no cigar.

It will be a subsidized system for those who cannot afford it. Not a subsidized system for those who can still partially afford it. The requirement  to be a member is simple—must be a qualified citizen or permanent immigrant status, must have contributed to the system for a certain length of time, or for a minimum amount, must be employed or must have reasonable causes to be unemployed, must be residing in the state covering his insurance, and etc.

How are the schedule of fees set?—by a discussion with the College of Physicians, the pharmacists, the specialists and so forth. There must be an official survey completed. But I must also mention the private hospitals. Or are there any hospitals in the US which is not a private hospital? Their fees may not follow the schedule as laid down by the government, but if the patient is registered to the State Insurance and opts to be billed as such, the hospital should follow the schedule of fees. NOTE: the hospital may be under litigation should it be proven to have a double standard against the denigrated treatment of state insurance patients.

Private hospitals are not allowed in Canada, only private doctors


MEDIA : The Quest for Guidelines


Media says : “The public has the right to know”

 Government says : “National interest comes first”

 And so goes the age-old struggle to determine what would media do under specific circumstances and what would the government do to regulate the actions of the media.

 Media strives for the truth, the government strives for sobriety. Media has the truth for a shield. Government has  the courts for control.

 Forums and discussions and investigations could not, would not be able to resolve this issue. The quest for the guidelines for the actions of the media has been elusive, though, probably even illusive. This is true when events that come about forces the issue of truth and national interest to come to the fore. Such events are more pronounced in the cases of hostage taking and hijacking.

 In these events, the public is split as to which side they favor, the airing of the events or the restraints for national interest. The public is at a lost as to what really should the media do.


“Would she or wouldn’t she?

Should she or shouldn’t she?

The lacking doubt,

Probably the most powerful thing in the world!”**


 Media would say : “we never would have known the truth had we not aired the event as it happens”


Government would say : ‘oh yeah sure, and look what happened after you aired the



Why don’t we think about it this way—-News is the lifeblood of every media person. News is the spark that inebrietes his senses and he goes for the media as ducks go to water. News is not merely an affinity with newsmen, it is an obssession. Oftentimes he wouldn’t care much if he goes against his better judgement on national interest. It is the NEWS, that’s why, and the public has to know.

 Let me put it this way—-newsmen, commonly called mediamen, or mediapersons as the case may be, should do better if they leave well enough alone the events that are unfolding. Let them be as observers. Let them be mere watchers. Let them be bystanders.

Move farther away from the events unfolding. Use zoom lenses and telescopic mikes. If  they believe that they should have done something to prevent somebody from doing bad, then they have been watching too close. They should stay farther back. They should be mere eavesdroppers of the events.


Comes now the rule of the thumb for the media—–Don’t do anything to affect the outcome of the events. Do not influence the results. Let history run its course.

And there we would have not only the guidelines for the media to follow, but the guiding principles for the media to keep in mind. With this, media can’t go wrong.


      **(David Niven in The Apartment)