Let's say a guy is sick; he can't stop coughing up blood. What does he do? Your answer would be probably be to go to a doctor. So he goes to the doctor and says, 'I'm sick. Make me better' Doctor says, 'Sure. Let me run some tests and we'll figure out what's wrong and we'll patch it right up.' This is, by any measurable standard, a typical and reasonable response. This is, as far as I can tell, how medicine works. Find the problem, fix it.
Now let's say, for the sake of this discussion, that there was no such thing as health insurance. Everyone pays all their medical bills out of pocket. Our patient's next question could reasonably be,'Well how much are the tests going to cost?' To which the doctor replies, 'Well, depends on how many we have to run. Could be one, could be ten.' Clearly the patient's symptoms narrow down the possible causes, but the human body is a funny thing, and all sorts of problems can present in all sorts of ways, as anyone who watches 'House' knows.
So our patient, like most of us, isn't exactly rich in pocket; he can't afford to write a blank check in exchange for a clean bill of health. So he says to the doctor, 'I can't afford too many tests. Just make me better.' Well, any sane doctor who's taken the Hippocratic Oath isn't going to blindly begin treatment without having any idea what's wrong with the patient, so he tells our patient, 'I can't treat you if I don't know what you have; treatment could kill you.' Our patient calmly replies, 'Well, I'm sorry, but I just don't have the time or the money for all these tests. Just give me something to take away my pain, and let me be on my way.'
Before I continue this little parable of mine, here is where I got the inspiration from it. Money quote, emphasis added is mine:
I'm concerned that a growing number of voters in this country simply don't get it. They are caught up in a fervor they can't explain, and calling it "change".
Change what?, I ask.
Well, we're going to change America , they say.
In what way?, I query.
We want someone new and fresh in the White House, they exclaim.
So, someone who's not a politician?, I press.
Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so we're voting for Obama, they state.
So the current system, the system of freedom and democracy that has enabled a man to grow up in this great country, get a fine education, raise incredible amounts of money and dominate the news and win his party's nomination for the White House - that system's all wrong?
No, no, that part of the system's okay - we just need a lot of change.
And so it goes. "Change we can believe in." Quite frankly, I don't believe that vague proclamations of change hold any promise for me. In recent months, I've been asking virtually everyone I encounter how they're voting. I live in Illinois , so most folks tell me they're voting for Barack Obama. But no one can really tell me why - only that he's going to change a lot of stuff. Change, change, change.
I have yet to find one single person who can tell me distinctly and convincingly why this man is qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth - other than the fact that he claims he's going to implement a lot of change.
We've all seen the emails about Obama's genealogy, his upbringing, his Muslim background, and his church affiliations. Let's ignore this for a moment. Put it all aside. Then ask yourself, what qualifies this man to be my president? That he's a brilliant orator and talks about change?
CHANGE WHAT?
Asking what you're going to change is like asking what your treatment is going to be when you go to the doctor; you don't know until you know what's wrong.
My story about the patient in the doctor's office was inspired by the author of this missive. The patient is America (in case you didn't already know). This man seems to either a) believe nothing in wrong with the current landscape of the country, in which case he doesn't even need to go to the doctor, or b) Thinks he already knows the answer to what's wrong, and just wants treatment, or c) Doesn't care, and just wants his discomfort to go away. With that in mind, let's continue:
The doctor insists he can't/won't treat the patient unless he knows what's wrong. So the patient relents, and agrees to one, and only one test: a CT scan.
So the patient has the scan, and it reveals that the patient has Stage II small cell lung cancer. Turns out, our patient is a heavy smoker. So the doctor delivers the news to the patient; you have cancer. It's advanced. If we don't begin treatment now, you'll probably die. Patient inquires about the prognosis.
Our doctor tells our patient that the first thing he has to do is stop smoking. Right now. Then comes chemotherapy. You'll feel weak, and it'll probably hurt. It's a long shot, and it's not going to be easy, but anything less than total commitment means a likely death.
How do you think the patient would react? It's a big change to undergo, but what's the alternative? To perish from the earth?
The patient doesn't want to hear that he's going to have to change his habits, and endure a long, painful course of treatment. But that's what needs to happen if you want to live, says the doctor.
Well, the patient is hearing none of that. He decides he wants a second opinion. So he goes to another doctor. This new doctor takes a look at the test results and says 'don't worry, you'll be fine. I'll take care of you.' 'Is it cancer?' the patient asks. 'Let's make you comfortable. Don't fret.' is the doctor's reply. So our patient dies a quiet, painless death, hooked up to a nice morphine drip, a cigarette still dangling from his smiling lips.
No change. No pain. Just death. The doctor did exactly what the patient asked; he took away his pain.
Which doctor would you rather have?
Ok, enough of me opening my mouth. I'm going to price hockey gear.
0 comments:
Post a Comment