In the past week, a number of my friends on Facebook have published the following statement as their status:

No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, feel free to post this as your status for the rest of the day.

On its face value, I can’t think of a statement I could more eagerly agree with. Still, I resisted the urge to repeat this passage as my status for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I’m just not a very good follower and anyone who knows me well will tell you that. Secondly, and more importantly, I was hesitant to appear as though I was in support of the current push in the United States to nationalize our system of health care delivery under House Resolution 3200.

The proposed legislation, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act” has people up in arms on both sides of political aisle. Nowhere in my recollection can I point to a time when senior citizens showed up (sometimes, in droves) to public forums to vocalize their displeasure over proposed legislation. Never, in my life, have I seen such utter vitriol from people on opposite sides of an issue.

It goes without saying that health care is something that Americans are taking very personally. And, rightly so.

I’m one of those unfortunate types who sits on the outside looking in. Since my world view doesn’t align easily with my political view, I don’t have a firm side to take in this argument. But, as with many matters, I can understand both sides rather well. The top-surface positions on this hotly-debated legislation, appear to go something like this (correct me if I’m wrong):

The American Left: It is disgraceful that health care is treated as a privilege and not a right. The true measure of our country’s security and prosperity is a population that is healthy, thriving and able to obtain needed care. We cannot discriminate against those unable to afford health care when it comes to matters of life-saving and life-prolonging care. There should be an affordable public option for those between employment.

Makes sense, yes?

The American Right: We haven’t the means to fund a proposal as lofty as this one. The plan includes provisions that could limit the medical and financial privacy of the individual. The plan places undue burden on smaller employers and reduces competition for qualified employees. The proposed legislation could usher in care-rationing on a broad scale.

Also makes pretty good sense. At least, to me.

The truth is, both sides have very compelling arguments. As someone who actually gives a damn about these things, I understand. If the citizens of the United States would simply take off their Liberal hats or Conservative coats for a moment and actually read the resolution, they might find themselves agreeing with the other side to some degree.

Since I stand on the outside of this mess, some might find my take a bit odd, but here it is anyway.

As a socially-liberal minded person (take that in the old school sense of community, tolerance, volunteerism), I think any country that espouses a Constitutionally-supported right to life must also support the right to fight for one’s own life. That means access to health care for one and all – irrespective of financial status, age, physical or neurological ability or orientation.

As someone who embraces a Libertarian view of government (that the federal government should be no larger than your average garden pea), I bristle at the idea of the federal government obtaining access to your private medical records, financial information and having power over treat or no-treat decisions. After all, these should remain personal decisions, made by you and not strangers in Washington.

I don’t claim to know anything about anything. But, what I would like to see happen, instead of HR 3200, falls along these lines.

- Tort reform
Find some sensible, fair and Constitutionally-correct way to cap medical malpractice payouts and reduce the number of frivolous suits against medical practitioners. The result (I reckon) would be the reduction of medical malpractice insurance premiums that physicians, other health care workers and facilities are made to pay. An immediate reduction in the cost of care delivery.

- Dismantle the near monopoly of HMOs
Through hefty lobbying, lots of money changing hands and not a small bit of corruption, HMOs (managed care providers) enjoy a market share that cannot be challenged by major medical insurers. To get rid of this, you’d likely have to fire half the people serving on Capitol Hill, but I think the house-cleaning is worth it. Your employer should have the absolute authority to offer you a cafeteria style benefits package. Not just managed care. Eliminate the stranglehold and you’ll reintroduce competition for premium dollars – thereby reducing premiums overall.

- Reserve lobbying to non-profits only
No one should ever have a problem with lobbying efforts from groups like PETA, ACLU, National Right to Life or any other non-profit group that represents a constituency in an ethical fashion – even if you don’t agree with their platform. But, when Kaiser Permanente, UHC, Pfizer and Baxter make up the most potent lobbying arms in this nation, you must know that something’s wrong. Eliminate the elbow-rubbing and pay-outs and let corporate factions go back to competing in a free market for business. No one in Washington should ever allow corporate interest to bump the queue when it comes to what is in the public interest.

- Realign some money
Pick a department of little to no use (the do-nothing Department of Energy springs to mind), abolish it and then use those federal dollars to ensure health care for the indigent.

- Community-based health care initiatives
I’m talking about federal or state dollars moved around to assist communities in establishing first-care facilities. There is no reason in the world anyone should go to an emergency room with an ear infection. Currently, such clinics are scarce. Get them opened and allow their physicians and nurse practitioners to actually spend time with patients and minister outside of the HMO guidebook and you’ll have a far healthier community – at a far lower cost.

- Freedom for alternative therapies
I think people should have the choice to seek alternative therapies for their ails. Hoxsey therapy seems to be quite helpful for some forms of cancer treatment. Yet, it’s not permitted in the states. Still, the government will be rolling out some 175 million doses of a flu vaccine in October that has not even been through clinical trials. There’s a drop off there. Allow insurance to underwrite more therapies and they will.

Those are for starters, mind you. And, you might think me mad for suggesting them. Still, I don’t think the problem with health care is that we haven’t nationalized it yet. I think the problem is that we’ve allowed it to become big business between HMOs and Washington. This has served to reduce the quality of care, drive costing through the bloody roof and eliminate your choices.

Some members of your servant government have allowed themselves to be compromised and corrupted, in the name of corporate success. This doesn’t serve the public good and it’s certainly not what the founders envisioned as government responsibility.

I think a nationalized system of health care delivery should be viewed as the Hail Mary pass at fixing a broken system. The first play should probably be healing what ails the system itself.

No. No one should die because they cannot afford health care. And, no one should go broke because they get sick. On that, I am completely with you.

But are we treating the illness or just masking the symptoms?