According to a 2007 U.S Census survey, 45.7 million people living in the United States are uninsured.(1) That’s 45.7 million people that cannot become ill without risking everything they’ve worked so hard to gain- their house, their jobs, and for about 18,000 people every year, their lives.(2) 45.7 million people, among them 8.1 million children,(3) that have fallen through the cracks of a broken system.
Some argue that a universal system would result in poorer quality health care for all and scorn the notion of “socialization.” Although I can certainly not answer to all the critics of universal health care, I cannot believe that any person would support the death and struggle of uninsured Americans simply to justify the prolongation of an ineffective system.
While the majority of Americans support universal coverage for all US citizens, there still exists controversy over the implementation of an effective solution.(4) Both presidential candidates have addressed the issue in a moderate way- make more options available and let the free market lower the costs. Senator McCain is in favor of credits for the insured.(5) Senator Obama prefers extending the current employer-based system and creating government standards for insurance providers, thus making premiums more affordable for businesses and consumers.(6)
Although both plans are a step in the right direction, neither candidate supports mandates for, nor guarantees, universal coverage. At the end of the day, the average Joe would still be left to his own devices in securing medical care (leaving some Americans still uninsured). In spite of the candidates’ platforms, Americans can only hope for meager, if any, gains towards complete coverage. Between the United States’ antisocialist sentiment and the recent economic crisis universal health care will inevitably be on the political back burner.
Universal health care is a moral and economic imperative. Yet, it seems that a national solution is not on the horizon. Perhaps we should put our faith in the ability of Congress to put aside partisan dispute for the greater good of its citizens (we’ve seen how well that cooperative notion has succeeded in the recently rejected economic recovery bill). Until then, moving to Canada is always an option.
1, 3. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin07/hlth07asc.html
2. http://www.iom.edu/?id=17848
4. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml
5. http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm
6. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Tom Rags-
I agree with your argument. Surely we as Americans can find a way to provide universal health care. Although the system may not be flawless, and probably will not be able to be, it is still worth a shot. Yes, there will always be controversy, and it will be impossible to satisfy all Americans, but what Congress should strive for is a system that is better than the one we have today. But just as this issue was coming to the forefront, we will most likely have to wait even longer now for a solution, as other crises are now apparent.
The United States Declaration of Independence speaks of citizens' fundamental right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The first of these, often overlooked, is life, a tenant at least substantiated by universal health care. Though it will clearly be expensive to institute a universal health care program, the lives saved and improved would more than cover the cost--with room to spare. Barack Obama's health care plan, while not guaranteeing health care for all in the United States, at least provides coverage to American children, those who do not have the power to choose. Obama's plan, however, will, in the long run, convince the American people that the goal of universal health care is attainable; a better system will follow.
The socialization of health care in America is by no means the best solution to the health care crisis we currently face. Few would argue that our government tends to be inept and inefficient when compared to the private sector. In order to accommodate the original poster's plan, the United States bureaucracy would have to balloon- most likely resulting in much more inept and impersonalized care.
The total cost of insuring America would increase greatly under this plan; surely one would be much more likely to visit the doctor when it does not cost them anything directly. Everyone would be equally responsible for medical charges of others; the person who eats healthily and exercises daily would still be forced to share the burden of paying for medical bills of drug users, the obese, and those who generally are in poor health.
There would be no competition for providing the best coverage rates, and the cost of all of this would be spread among the whole of the tax base. Those who cannot currently afford health care would most likely simply be mandated to purchase it through higher tax rates.
While few would disagree that health care is an extremely important issue in America today, and that we do need to take steps toward insuring all Americans, having the government take over the health care industry in America is not the best solution.
To address Ray Gun-
Although there are certainly more moderate, capitalist-friendly proposals, I feel that a socialized system would be the most appropriate way to deal with the crisis we face today. To say that federal action is always inefficient is quite the blanket statement. I feel that some of the merits of certain federal programs are largely ignored (defense forces and research, subsidization of higher education, and postal services come immediately to mind).
On the point of socialized medicine- if everyone had basic care, government would be able to subsidize preventative care (which, if given to all, would reduce the prevalence of chronic illnesses caused by poor diet, lack of exercise, etc.). Those with chronic illness are already given emergency care. However, because some of these patients lack insurance, their medical bills are left either paid with the patient bankrupt/unpaid/partially unpaid/partially federally paid/etc. and the difference is compensated for in raised expenses for everyone (also raising insurance premiums). Thus, by providing preventative care for all, emergency care costs might actually go down and benefit the already insured.
As for the lack of doctors, that's an impending disaster all its own, regardless of whether health care becomes socialized. With the aging American population, it's absolutely imperative that there are more medical and nursing schools to train more qualified medical practitioners and ease the strain of the physician shortage. Measures counteracting this lack in medical professionals would be, I'd hope, implemented complementary to legislation socializing the system.
Unless there is sweeping decisive action, to be contributed by all Americans for the benefit of the nation, the problems in our health care system will only get worse in the years to come.
tom rags,
I like the points made in your post, and I agree in your assertion that neither candidate is offering a fully universal plan (although I think Obama’s comes closer). I think it is important to add, however, that this is not necessarily such a bad thing. Like you, I am all for universal health care, but it should be expected that the road to such a goal, especially in America, is a difficult one. If we think back to Hillary’s efforts during the Clinton administration, the concept of more universal coverage was met with intense opposition. While that may have softened a little by now, there are still many Americans, like ray gun, who are understandably concerned with the inherently socialist nature of such a plan. We should see current universal health care plans as a stepping stone, much like Clinton’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy is a stepping stone for gay rights in the military. While there are people on both sides of the issue, either those who are totally against the bill, or those that are disappointed with Bill for not going far enough, the truth is the Clinton administration probably couldn’t have gotten anything more socially liberal put into legislation. But it’s still a move in the right direction. The same goes for health care legislation this election season.
I do not believe that Universal Healthcare or anything resembling the likeness thereof should ever be allow to pass legislation. This is the United States of America. We were not founded on the principles of the federal government exacting taxes and providing inefficient services. Our forefathers had a vision of a nation ruled by individuals, people who realized the flaws in centralized government and sought to diffuse power amongst the people.
If the United States establishes a Universal healthcare system, it will follow the fate of every other federal program in existence. It will go bankrupt and people will end up having to pay extra money for private care, on top of the taxes they are already paying and the result will look something similar to Compton High School in Los Angeles, California.
I am not claiming the current system is perfect. But, these Healthcare solutions may be worse than the current problem. Also, everyone in our Nation is already covered even without insurance.
"Also, everyone in our Nation is already covered even without insurance." Yes, Anonymous, they are covered for medical emergencies. They're not covered for the medication to combat long-term, potentially fatal illnesses though. So sure, if someone has a heart attack, they'll be treated. Afterwards, they'll get a $10k-$15k+ bill for their expenses. If the condition is chronic and they can't afford the medication to prevent it (or any health services because they have a pre-existing condition), but have just enough money not to qualify for Medicaid or aren't old enough for Medicare, then there's no ending the cycle.
I feel a universal system of medicine is important and probably more efficient because:
1. A greater section of the population will have access to preventable treatment/medication for chronic illnesses, effectively reducing emergency costs (much more traumatic, worse long term effects, and more expensive).
2. It's morally right. To allow people to die when you have the resources to aid them is against the cooperative fiber that builds a society.
3. True, our government was founded on minimalist principles. Our society also tolerated slavery, gross inequalities of wealth, the displacement of native peoples and inequalities in civil rights. I believe, acting in the vein of progressivism that has fueled our nation's growth, working under the notions of tolerance and unity, will help us as a nation.
4. I have a hard time believing that all federal systems are doomed to bankruptcy. Inefficiency leads to bankruptcy, private or public enterprise (as we have most recently seen...). The problem isn't to give up one's ideals, but to create the logistical backbone so that they may come into fruition.
1. Actually I was referring to bankruptcy law. Because of it, everyone's healthcare is covered.
2. Then you become a doctor and set your own, "moral" wage. You do not need the blessing of the federal government to enter the industry.
3. The word "progressive" is a loaded term. It assumes that it is "progressing." The reality is that it is not progress. It is the opposite. The word itself is a euphemism for strong central power. History is filled with strong central governments and failed federal schemes. America should not “digress” into “progressivism.”
4. I defy you to present to me a government program that actually helps who it was intended, and that in the long run isn’t going bankrupt.
The reality is government and “progressives” have these beautiful and well-intentioned schemes to assist some demographic in society. But they very rarely ever accomplish the original goal at the most efficient cost. I think a wiser decision would be to try and increase private charity. Our government can provide tax incentives for charity. In the words of Patrick Henry, “give me liberty or give me death.” It does not need to make another harebrained scheme that our nation is stuck with indefinitely.
1. Not all debts are waived when filing for bankruptcy. And one's clinical illness doesn't end after bankruptcy (just the credit scores, ability to be self-sufficient when facing illness and retributive payments, etc...).
2. I am planning on being a doctor, which is why I consider this to be an eminently important issue. And yes, I plan on taking action when able (working either internationally or at a not-for-profit clinic to improve the health of the world community).
3. So you don't believe creating an infrastructure to save people's lives, striving towards a healthier population, is not progressive?
4. Some very respectable federal programs: National Institutes of Health (research granting, minority opportunities, facilities, etc.), Head Start, and the typical "safety net" programs (Medicaid, welfare, etc.). And these programs are not funded by specific trusts but by periodic budget reviews, fueled by continual tax revenue and can only go "bankrupt" insofar as our entire country might go bankrupt.
The scope of this issue has multiple ramifications for every facet of our daily lives, ranging from the stability of our citizens' finances to employment dynamics. While I wouldn't have issue if private charities were able to cover the gap, I just can't imagine anything but a centralized power to wield the force necessary to provide health care to all our citizenry.
Post a Comment