Smarmoofus Spot

Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times recently asked “What do we need health insurers for anyway?” Frankly, I’ve been wondering the same thing. (Some of you may have heard me express my lack of sympathy for a multi-billion-dollar-industry-that-produces-nothing before.) Throughout the ongoing debate about health care reform in this country, money seems to be the underlying issue. Who will pay for providing care to those who can’t pay for it themselves? How do we control the costs for people who are facing insurance premium increases? If the government steps in, how will it pay for its intervention? And, seemingly the biggest question among conservatives, Why should I have to pay for the bum down the street?

I formed my opinion on this debate in 1997, shortly after I aged out of being a military dependent and learned what the rest of you already knew: the private healthcare system sucks.  I grew up with socialized healthcare, and I credit my survival to the excellent (and aggressive) care I received.  I have seen a system that works, right here in the U.S., and opponents would be hard pressed to disavow me of my belief that the U.S. Government can manage it.

And, since the government already picks up the slack for the most medically vulnerable (read medically expensive) in our nation (the elderly, disabled, and children in poverty) through programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP, anyway, why not let it take the healthy and robust people on board, as well?  If we diverted all those billions of dollars we pay in insurance premiums every year to the government coffers (well, knowing the Government, perhaps to a special health care program that cannot be pillaged), and eliminate the cap on earnings that is taxed for Social Security, I think we could pretty much pay for the plan.

While browsing the news at Google today, I again came across an article that warrants some discussion.

‘Internet addiction’ linked to depression, says study

I admit this article acknowledges that the researchers did not claim a causal relationship between internet addiction and depression, so perhaps it was conducted well.  However, I am troubled by a basic assumption that seems to have been made: the researchers seem to deeply undervalue virtual contact.  Either the researchers or the reporter who wrote this article seems to state a dichotomous relationship between “meaningful friendship” and “virtual contact”.  Virtual contacts apparently cannot be meaningful friends.

Maybe because I have traveled about and met many of my virtual contacts face-to-face, I get a pass… maybe my friends are more worthy than the typical addict’s contacts simply because I’ve seen them in three dimensions on at least one occasion.  If so, how trivial would that distinction be?  What do you think, my virtual contact?  Are you glad that this serious issue was brought to my attention so maybe I will finally seek help, or are you insulted that anybody would challenge the significance of our friendship?  Is it time for intervention, or righteous indignation?

(If intervention comes in the form of a travel allowance, I’ll take it!  As always, Paypal to smarmoofus [at] gmail.com.)

▼▼▼▼▼

▲▲▲▲▲