The Rationale For Universal Healthcare - Essay Example

The Rationale for Universal Healthcare The of health care has been a volatile and divisive topic during several periods of American history. The past 18 years the debate has surfaced twice again, during a failed attempt to pass reform legislation by the Clinton administration in the 1990’s and since Obama took office culminating in the signing into law of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA). Though it is historic and groundbreaking law, neither political persuasion is satisfied with the outcome. After many months of heated rhetorical bombs being lobbed by at each other the debate between conservative and liberal ideology on the subject continues and likely will for years to come. The law seems to be more of a starting point than a destination for health care reform. Essentially, the liberal minded Democrats want a single payer, universal healthcare system instituted which covers all Americans. A similar all inclusive and much more streamlined system than is still the case in the U.S. system is utilized by Canada, Britain, Japan, Brazil, Russia all western European countries and several other nations. Essentially every civilized, industrialized nation but the U.S. employs some type of universal health delivery. The conservative Republican solution is essentially to do nothing much as was done during the Bush Presidency. Giving tax cuts to the wealthy and tax incentives to businesses and individuals in addition to allowing the free market to operate unabated and unregulated is the repeated rhetoric Republicans offer as a solution to the very complex issue of health care. The Republican answers do not address the problem however which is reducing overall costs while covering all persons, a very complex issue requiring more then simple slogan-worthy answers. This paper will examine the Democrat position regarding health care reform while offering the Republican viewpoint as rebuttal. The PPACA is expected to reduce the deficit $143 billion during the first decade and $1.5 Trillion the second decade, 2020-2030. (Holohan, 2010) Included in the new law is a Patient’s Bill of Rights which effectively ends some of the most egregious health insurance company practices. People cannot be denied insurance for pre-existing conditions and cannot have their insurance expire due to lifetime limits of the policy. Children of policy holders can stay on it until the age 26, patients are given an appeals process for coverage decisions by the insurer and other benefits to be phased in over the next few years. The PPACA will also expand insurance coverage to 32 million Americans. (The White House, 2010) The PPACA was a historic piece of legislation many said would never happen and was a hard fought victory for Obama and the Democratic controlled congress. It addressed many important issues and will help millions of people while saving billions of dollars. However, the PPACA falls well short of being universal health care. The law doesn’t even include the ‘public option’ which was supposed to be the compromise with Republicans. The public option would have essentially meant the government would be the insurer for approximately 10 percent of public, still well short of the single payer, all-inclusive, system. Contrasting other industrialized nations, economic status plays a significant role in determining Americans health status, a shameful situation in the minds of, for example, European citizens who have the benefit of ‘cradle-to-grave’ health care. They regard health care as a birthright. Caring for the country’s sick without considering their position in society is a responsibility all civilized societies but one accept. “The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship” (Battista, McCabe, 1999). Going beyond the PPACA to enacting universal health care would drastically lessen the burden of healthcare costs to middle and lower income families and reduce the division of quality care along income lines. Most Americans agree with the majority of the world. Society has a responsibility to each other to provide universal health care without consideration of their economic status. When asked “do you think the federal government should guarantee health care for all Americans?” Americans support government guaranteed health care for everyone, by a margin a fairly wide margin of 62-38 percent. (Kleefeld, 2009) The phrase ‘America is number one!’ is often repeated but can only be factually applied to military and economic prowess. This saying does not include the accessibility, affordability and quality of health care. “The United States, which has the most expensive health system in the world, underperforms consistently relative to other countries and differs most notably in the fact that Americans have no universal health insurance coverage” (Presse, 2007). According to the latest health care system rankings by the World Health Organization, (WHO, 2000) America came in 37th just ahead of Cuba and behind Costa Rica. Those opposed to universal health care such as pharmaceutical and insurance companies as well as right-wing partisans continue to portray this system as ‘socialized medicine.’ (Brase, 2010) This label elicits fears of communist principles, the ‘red menace’ slithering into American culture. Universal health care, however, cannot be accurately describes as socialized medicine. “Socialized medicine is a system in which the government owns the means of providing medicine. In a socialized system, the government employs the doctors and nurses, builds and owns the hospitals, and bargains for and purchases the technology.” (Klein, 2009) In the single payer system one institution, the government, purchases all but private health care but does not own the facilities or equipment and is not the boss of doctors and nurses. France has this system. Britain, on the other hand, operates a socialized system much the same as the Veterans hospitals of the U.S. Until the U.S. adopts universal health care its citizens will lag well behind other nations in terms of overall health. For example, the greatly differing societies of Japan, Cuba and the U.S. were compared to determine whether or nor a nation’s income was determinant of it people’s general health status. The gross domestic product (GDP) and average life expectancy of these countries were compared. The findings showed income does not necessarily translate to healthier people. The GDP (per person) in Japan is $25,000. Their life expectancy is the highest of any nation at 81 years. The GDP of the average U.S. citizen is $34,000, about 25 percent more than Japan but the average life-span is 77. Cuba’s GDP is only $5200 but the average Cuban can expect to live the same number of years as an American. (Bhattacharya, 2004). The Japanese place much more emphasis on social cohesiveness when compared to other societies, strikingly more so then in the U.S. This interconnection is achieved because the Japanese society perceives, thus there exists less, of a disparity in social hierarchy. In very simple terms they take an ‘all for one and one for all’ outlook. The conflict theory does not apply to Japanese culture to the same extent as in other societies. The ‘blue collar’ worker doesn’t experience comparable external therefore internal pressures to climb the social ladder into a perceived higher class and is not frustrated or ashamed by their current social standing, at least not to the same extent of those in other countries. “Hierarchies are inevitable but how hierarchies are translated to differences in health is the crucial question. Social arrangements, education and social cohesion may be crucial factors” (Marmot, 1991). The Japanese put a more importance in caring for their older citizens than does the U.S. society. In addition its industrial productivity is higher and crime rate significantly lower. The chasm between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ in Japan is less than in the U.S. and their people enjoy a healthier life thus longer lifespan. Implementing universal heal care would remove the financial liability to the poor, elderly, poor and middle class families. Opponents of the plan argue that no one is entitled to health care. “Under the American system you have a right to health care if you can pay for it, i.e., if you can earn it by your own action and effort. But nobody has the right to the services of any professional individual or group simply because he wants them and desperately needs them.” (Peikoff, 2009) This view is not only of the minority in the world but in U.S. as well. However, this immoral stance is reflected in the policy of the U.S. and is its sad reality. Opponents also maintain universal health care would be too costly. The facts do not support this concern however. The average U.S. citizen pays more for health care than does any other person worldwide by an astonishing 40 percent more on average. This includes those who enjoy the benefits of universal coverage. According to reports by the General Accounting Office, the U.S. would save between $100 and $200 billion each year if universal health care were put into practice. The State of Massachusetts ratified a single-payer health care system in 2006 and saved between $1 and $2 billion the first year. Canada passed the universal system in 1971 and no one sees Canadians demonstrating in the streets demanding that country repeal the law or convert to the U.S. system. In addition the country has saved a considerable amount of money even though its economy is weaker than the U.S. Much of this savings is bureaucratic in nature. “Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current U.S. system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100 percent more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money” (Battista, McCabe, 1999). A report by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2006 showed that U.S. citizens paid on average $11,500 for health care benefits if they were supplemented by an employer. (Leonhardt, 2006) This was nearly an eight percent increase from 2005. The cost of benefits doubled from just seven years previous. Unfortunately wages and employers revenue, which greatly subsidize insurance premiums, have only risen slightly. The terms escalating and healthcare costs are increasingly intertwined in American language usage. This has created an economic emergency for employees, employers and the government. According to (Leonhardt 2006), “the average person spent just under $100 a year for health care benefits or the equivalent of $500 in today’s dollars in 1950. In 2005, the average person spent close to $6,000.” That cost has risen exponentially since that time and not expected to be curtailed at least not until universal health care is the law and not a watered-down version as is the PPACA. Those opposed to a single payer system generally regard healthcare costs as a commodity. The more money you have the better product you can afford. Those for it think of healthcare as another essential service such as police, fire and education, all of which have been socialized. Who would want a privatized police or fire department where only those with cash up front could get these services? The same argument can and should be made for healthcare, the most essential service of all. Americans of all political persuasions are more than willing to support these basic services with their tax dollars yet many who allow themselves to be influenced by fear-mongers of the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, would reject health care services being delivered by the same approach. “In the United States, certain publicly funded health care programs help to provide for the elderly, disabled, military service families and veterans, and the poor. Federal law ensures public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay; however, a system of universal health care has not been implemented” (“Universal” 2005). Though the new health care law is a great first step but it is only a small baby step compared to the ultimate goal of single payer, universal health care system for this country. PPACA was passed only after vicious debates pitting truth against lies, compassion versus indifference and cost saving against health costs soaring out of reach for many and contributing the bankrupting of the nation. The ‘greatest country in the world’ as mimicked by the masses is clearly not, at least in the area of healthcare services. Presently, the U.S. is the lone ‘civilized’ nation that permits health care to be widely considered as simply another commodity. The lack of universal health care widens the chasm between rich and poor. We are proving to the world that our values begin and end with money. If you have it you are important enough to have health care, if not, tough luck. This reality is a despicable and embarrassing circumstance. It’s also illogical because a single payer system would actually reduce costs significantly while allowing all citizens what should be considered a basic right of life. The problem is that the insurance industry contributes vast amounts of money to politicians who then vote against the best interest of their constituents and in favor of their own political interests. Insurance money also funds advertisements designed to frighten people. This type of propaganda works because the American people are generally under-informed therefore believe what they hear. They are also evidently too lazy to objectively research what is the most essential issue of their family’s lives. Americans in general should be ashamed and disgusted for allowing their selves to be so easily misled and manipulated. Works Cited Battista, John R., M.D. McCabe, Justine, Ph.D. “Talk Given To the Association of State Green Parties” (June 4, 1999). November 30, 2010 Bhattacharya, Shaoni “Higher status leads to a longer life.” New Scientist. (June 8, 2004). November 30, 2010 Brase, Twila RN “How Socialized Medicine (“Obamacare”) Will Impact Your Choices, Pocketbook and Freedom.” Citizens Council on Health Care (2010) November 30, 2010 “Health Reform in Action” The White House (2010). November 30, 2010 Holahan, John “Will Health Care Reform Increase the Deficit and National Debt? Timely Analysis of Immediate Health Policy Issues” Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (August 2010) November 30, 2010 Kleefeld, Eric “Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Favor Universal Health Care -- Until Taxes Are Mentioned.” Talking Points Memo D.C. (May 29, 2009). November 30, 2010 Klein, Ezra “Health Reform for Beginners” The Washington Post (June 9, 2009) November 30, 2010 Leonhardt, David. “The Choice: A Longer Life or More Stuff.” New York Times. (September 27, 2006). November 30, 2010 Marmot MG, Shipley MJ, Rose G. “Inequalities in death—specific explanations of a general pattern?” Lancet. Vol. 1, (1984):1003-6. [PMID: 6143919]. Peikoff, Leonard “Health Care is not a Right” Capitalism Magazine (August 14, 2009). November 30, 2010 Presse, Agence France. “U.S. Health System Ranks Last Compared to Other Countries” (May 15, 2007). November 30, 2010 Read More