E-mail
Print
Universal health care: Not a bad idea
Taxes may increase, but all will benefit
By Chris Walker
A universal health care system would ensure that every American could gain access to health care coverage, regardless of their ability to pay for insurance or not.
Last week, President Bush vetoed a bill that would grant health care to millions of children across the nation. The bill would have called for $35 billion over five years to a child health care program already in place. Meanwhile, Bush and his Republican allies are seeking $190 billion dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This veto has come at a very appropriate time. There has been much talk lately (among presidential candidates, filmmakers and everyday Americans alike) about instituting a single-payer health care system in the United States, for children as well as for adults. Such a system would ensure that every American could gain access to health care coverage, regardless of their ability to pay for insurance or not.
There have been arguments for and against such a system. The arguments for universal coverage include the fact that the U.S. is the only industrialized country in the world without such a system – and as such, our life expectancy is below that of many countries much poorer than us.
In fact, in the World Health Organization’s last survey ranking the nations of the world’s health care systems, the U.S. came up ranked 37th, just better than Slovenia and just worse than Costa Rica.
The arguments against universal coverage usually rely upon the fact that such a system would raise taxes and that waiting lists would become commonplace within the U.S. health care system.
While waiting lists are common in countries with universal health care, it isn’t fair to assess them as bad based on that alone. People within those countries (such as France, Britain, Canada and others) are placed on waiting lists only if their medical conditions allow them to wait. Those that need emergency medical attention are not placed on lists and are helped almost immediately.
Creating a national health care system also benefits us because it would create less of an economic strain. When uninsured people get sick, they usually wait it out and hope for the best.
But, sometimes they get REALLY sick and must go to the emergency room despite their lack of coverage. The hospital won’t turn them away if they’re in dire need of help, but they have to charge someone. So they raise the prices of normal care to people who do have insurance.
But a national health care system would alleviate that problem by allowing the poorest among us access to medical attention when they needed it first, not when it became a necessity. And any economic strains would be placed upon the government, not the people, to worry about.
Several myths exist about a single-payer system of health care that need debunking. First off, there’s the myth that you won’t be able to select your doctor and that doctor’s will get paid less for their work.
This is simply untrue: You still get to select your own doctor; you just don’t have to pay for it. The government will cover the bill, but the doctor’s can still determine what that bill will be, and thus receive a just compensation for the medical treatment you will receive.
There is also the myth that your taxes will go up an exuberant amount if we institute a national health care system. Taxes would go up; but at the same time, you wouldn’t have to pay for any health insurance. For a lot of people, it would be like nothing changed; for others, it might even mean paying less for health care coverage.
According to Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), 64% of our health care system is already financed by public funds. Employers pay for 19% of the system, while the remaining 17% is paid by individuals through health insurance (or paying directly for those without health insurance).
PNHP suggests that raising taxes by 2% – for everyone, not just the rich – and taxing businesses 7% would be enough to help pay for a universal system of coverage.
There exists a real potential for implementing a single-payer health care system in America. Stating things like “your taxes will be higher” without giving context is detrimental to the debate.
A change to universal health care wouldn’t be paradise – you’d still have to pay taxes to fund it – but it would mean that no one in the country would have to live in fear if they weren’t insured.
> Comments