Week 5 Readings

            Yet another surprise this week! I’ve been a long time football fan, and even a pretty strong Green Bay Packer fan, yet I had no clue that they are a non-profit, publicly owned entity. Apparently, that type of model would be ideal, yet it is not realistic. The fact that the Green Bay Packers have a deeply involved, engaged, and committed fan base makes that model work, by my perception. Otherwise, the cost of running a team would be far too high. It seems to me that if professional teams took this approach that it might encourage the type of fan base that Green Bay has. It would also inspire a better sense of community and instill pride. Sports aren’t just games; we can’t ignore the impact it has on our communities, both economically and civically. In our own community, we can see how much the football team has brought the people of Eugene together. If more professional teams took the Green Bay approach, it could take this aspect a step further in cities across the country.

            “The Value of Non-Profit Health Care” article was basically an argument in favor of non-profit hospitals and health care services. Their points were completely valid, and some of the facts were new to me. Yet my critique of the article is the absence of acknowledging the counter argument. Why is there “growing scrutiny” of non-profit health care?

            My personal feelings are simple: non-profit health care wins. It takes me about two seconds to come to this conclusion when considering the agenda of the two sides. I realize that the topic is not that simple, yet the underlying concept, the foundation, is what’s most important to me. Non-profit = betterment of the community. For profit = money for shareholders. Easy decision for me, regardless of the benefits of for-profit health care. All other aspects are secondary in this debate. The fundamentals are what are important. There are problems, but policy will always have the ability to address these problems.

            Despite my staunch position, determined by underlying principles, there really is no clear answer to the debate. The previous article hinted at it, but the article on hospital mergers and buyouts make it clear: for-profit hospitals simply have more resources, and therefore more potential to do well. This means facilities, technology, etc. This concept is evident everywhere in life: those who have the money, have the power. Sad but true. I think most would agree that non-profit hospitals are desirable, based on their intentions. Yet some might change that opinion when they see how inefficient a non-profit hospital can be in comparison with a for-profit one that has a lot of money.

            In keeping with the order of the readings, the ADD article highlights this problem with for-profit health care. The drug companies saw an opportunity for revenue and aggressively pursued it, taking what might be a problem and brainwashing society, convincing them it’s an “epidemic”.  I have ADD, no doubt (yes, I know everyone says it, but seriously), so I’ve spent a lot of time considering this issue. My conclusion is that it’s a societal problem, something that our lifestyles has led us to. I have also concluded that it can be overcome through practice and creating good habits. Pills are not the answer! Damn you money hungry drug companies, you can’t fool me! My favorite line of the article: “There’s also speculation that some great figures in history had ADD and led tortured but productive lives -- Leonardo Da Vinci, Pablo Picasso, Winston Churchill.” Hope I’m one of them.