ANOTHER DEFAULT

   Yesterday, the Space Shuttle began wending its way toward the International Space Station (ISS) as we celebrated the 40th anniversary of the first Moon landing. In 1969, those of us who sat in front of our TV sets watching the grainy images returning from “Tranquility Base” dreamed of vacations in space and colonization of other worlds as a follow-up to the astounding achievement we felt part of.

   It’s been 40 years, and I feel betrayed. The hope of manned space exploration is one more thing upon which the government establishment has defaulted. Some insist we cannot afford space exploration with our current problems on Earth. Others contend that there is simply no need to go to other worlds. The excuses continue, but no one has offered any answers to the positive aspects that have been largely ignored by detractors:

   1. Thousands of jobs were created by both the space program itself and its ripple effect,

   2. Billions of people have benefitted from the science and technology developed for the manned space flights such as;

     a) cardiac pacemakers and remote monitoring in Intensive Care Units and Cardiac Care Units,

     b) Personal Computers (that’s right, you probably would not be reading this except for the work done for the space program; think how PC’s and the Internet have changed the world,

     c) New technologies like composite materials that make cars and aircraft cheaper to build and more efficient to use, microwave ovens, LCD TV and computer screens,

     d) Changes in medical technology like fiber optics that allow us to perform medical procedures though small incisions with next day discharge rather than major surgery as well as imaging technologies such as CT-Scanning and MRI’s all owe their origins to the Space Program.

   The above lists continue, and anyone with an open mind and an intellect above that of a sponge can see the benefits, both economic and technological, that arose from a program that used less than 1% of the national budget. But ultimately, there are three more compelling reasons to expand our space program rather than cut back.

   First, when (not if) a meteor strikes Earth causing an Extinction Level Event (ELE), we need to have spread humanity to other worlds that can survive on their own. Secondly, the advances in technology, health, job creation and economic benefits will likely grow exponentially, leaving us much better off by the beginning of the 22nd century (only 90 years away). Finally, and of a more immediately compelling nature (as if the foregoing was not enough) is that space, including colonization of the Moon and Mars constitutes the military “High Ground.” Whoever controls space will ultimately control Earth. At the moment, it looks like we should all start learning to speak Mandarin.

A Bridge Too Far

   The phrase, “a bridge too far,” has been understood to mean that a military unity had gone too far in securing a bridge to remain safe. It could be cut off from the main body, and its supply lines were too long to secure.

   Yesterday, I heard a radio advertisement for a local hospital. The “patient” stated that when everyone else had given up and told her that her cancer was incurable and she would have to die, she came to the hospital doing the advertising and is now cancer free. They were able to do things that others could not.

   This is a dangerous advertisement because it gives the impression that a select group of physicians, aggregated at one hospital, has special knowledge and skill that is unavailable to others, (sic) “we can cure your cancer and they can’t.”

   Medical knowledge is freely available. Proprietary medical knowledge is anathematic to everything held dear in Medicine (note, I did not say “Health Care,” or “Health Care Provider”). While it is true that some facilities concentrate in specific areas of Medicine to create “Centers of Excellence,” and others function as regional research centers and so have investigational treatments available to them when others do not, on the whole, the only barrier standing between a patient and the most advanced care on the planet is insurance coverage. Let’s stop these deceptive ads and get real information to the public.

   More importantly, thought, is that but for a lack of coverage, we could all get the best possible care and, if our local hospital does not have a particular test or treatment (after all, it would be inherently inefficient to have every hospital, no matter its size or location have every possible piece of equipment available), we would be referred to one that does.

   Detractors of President Obama’s Health Care Plan who attack the “public option,” as putting a government bureaucrat between you and your physician are either in the employ of the insurance industry (i.e. their lobby), or have chosen to remain blind to the fact that insurance companies have interjected themselves into heal care decisions more than the government could ever hope to or want to. Without the public option to keep these same companies in check, we will live or die at the mercy of their “bottom line.”

   In the past three years, politicians have re-learned the hard lesson that they disregard the will of the electorate at their own peril. We, the People, control what our legislators do if we take the time to contact them and insist upon it. With regard to Health Care Reform and Universal Coverage (which would require a public component) I ask the same age old questions; “If not now, when? If not us, who?”