Suffer Well: Universal Health Care
Universal Health Care? In the United States, I feel the term is greeted with the same skepticism/derision as the mythical unicorn, perpetual motion, and World Champion Chicago Cubs. So why then is the United States the only “industrialized” nation in the world to not have a universal health care system? And what does the term actually mean to you and me?
Universal Health Care actually means exactly the same as it reads; health care coverage that is extended to all eligible residents of a government region. Coverage typically includes medical, dental, and mental health care. During his recent presidential campaign, Barack Obama was a strong supporter of a comprehensive restructuring of our national health-care system amidst much criticism from opponent John McCain.
Despite criticism that health-care reform should be delayed until after the economy is “fixed” (what, we haven’t gotten our economy back from the body shop yet?) the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus recently delivered a “Call to Action” proposal for Heath Care Reform in 2009. The principle goals of his health-care reform plan are to provide health care to the 45 million American’s who lack it, and to reign in the soaring costs of the current system.
The Baucus plan seeks to improve upon the current system in which the majority of American’s receive medical coverage through their employers. Small businesses who do not currently provide medical benefits for their employees would be required to do so or pay into a fund to cover the uninsured, however, the businesses would qualify for a new tax credit to help them offset these costs. Insurance would be required for all citizens, and those who would not receive coverage through an employer would purchase coverage on their own, with a government subsidy available dependent upon the individual’s income.
This is such a sticky issue for me. On the one hand I don’t want anyone to not have health insurance, but where does the money come from? Our tax dollars will either go to help the uninsured receive medical care (it is illegal for any medical provider to refuse medical service) or it will go to provide subsidies for individuals to buy insurance that they could not otherwise afford. And after bailing out the automakers, the insurance industry and the banking industry, where is this money even going to come from? Furthermore, in this economic state, I think that we would be stifling entrepreneurs from starting businesses by placing more prohibitive costs on hiring employees.
So, what is the answer? For the majority of us, nothing would change. Most Americans receive medical insurance through their employers. Will trading the cost of the uninsured receiving medical care help lower spiraling medical costs for the rest of us by providing all with insurance? I would love to hear what you think!
I agree that it is a shame that a country as powerful and proud as the United States has so many people that can’t even go see a doctor. Morally it is the right thing to do. And for those that are sad enough to make arguments such as “well its not my fault they cant afford it. I’m not paying 0.5% more in taxes for them,” I would argue you pay more. Allowing people to have health care keeps people healthier, which lowers costs as a whole. Who do you think ultimately pays the hospital bills for unisured people that cant afford and ultimately never pay their emergency room bills becasue they are outrageous? Everyone does. I had an emergency procedure that costs $100,000 but luckily i was insured and only had to pay $5,000. So someone in the same situation as me without insurance that probably makes less money would get slammed with $100K in more debt that they cant pay. It is not only the right thing to do as people, but it also makes sense financially for our country. Medical bills ruin a lot of lives in this country, and it would cost relatively little to help out a lot.
I think the irony in the situation you mention, is that because you were insured your procedure was $100k. If someone who was not insured went in for the same procedure, somehow I doubt the price tag remains the same. In medicine, it seems to me as though if you can afford to pay, you will be charged for it. I do completely agree with your assertion that we pay more in societal costs for the medically uninsured, however, the argument with a lot of people isn’t just paying more money to help the uninsured; but paying to help a person that (insert looked down upon bad habit here; overeats, smokes, drinks, doesn’t exercise, drugs, etc) when the holier than thou benefactor does not. What a situation, and without a complete change in the way we view medicine in America, one that will be quite difficult to change.