A previous article focusing on the U.S. health care system and suggesting that it was time to institute some form of universal health insurance, drew an interesting response: "I don't want to pay for everyone else to have health care." On the surface, the sentiments seemed selfish, and many people enjoined the commenter to be more civic minded. Others suggested that by creating universal access to health care, the United States would be skipping down the slippery slope to communism. Others are concerned that their taxes will skyrocket to cover health care for everyone.
Everyone in the United States who uses health care in any form and pays for it is already paying to cover the 1 in 6 Americans whose health is uninsured.
Some uninsured people are so sick that no one will insure them. Unable to purchase coverage at any price, they consume a great quantity of services, and once their personal financial resources are exhausted, they become a burden on the rest of us. There are also the working poor, who have barely enough to live on and cannot afford health insurance if it is even available to them. These people and their children wait until sickness becomes critical before seeking medical attention.
Because physicians are not required to treat anyone who cannot pay, these people often seek treatment at emergency rooms, where they cannot be turned away. The downside to this arrangement is that the care at emergency rooms is more expensive than similar care at a clinic or doctor's office, and when the indigent cannot pay, the hospital passes the cost of treating the poor and pursuing them for the bill on to the rest of us who can. This is sickness care, and it is exponentially more expensive than health care.
Consequently, those who don't want to pay for everyone else's care are thwarted. We have no choice. We live in the world with people who need care and cannot pay for it. They get whatever care they get, and we pay for it to the tune of thousands of dollars annually. The point of creating universal access to health care is that it ought to lower the cost of health care for all of us. Compare the cost of a flu vaccine to the cost of treating the flu in the ER.
People who do not receive preventative care, which is cheaper than sickness care, also share the misery in the form of TB, flu, HIV, and various other communicable diseases, which never check anyone's insurance status before infecting them.
The bottom line about paying for health care for other people: We already do it, and in the most inefficient and costly way imaginable. Looking for a way to pay for their care more efficiently while at the same time treating them with dignity is not a sin against the free enterprise system; it is good sense, in the tradition of Yankee ingenuity and work ethic. It is not a form of communism to want to keep big corporations from robbing us blind while denying the poor all but the most meager care.
Government, yours, mine and the one in Timbuktu operates on social contract theory. Simply put, people agree to give the government power in return for its protection or other services. This is the idea behind the line in the Declaration of Independence, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
We agree to allow the government to have power over us in return for something. In the United States, the government is charged with certain things in its constitution. The purpose of the government is stated in the preamble, which schoolchildren used to have to memorize. For those who are not among that generation, the preamble states:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The part in bold is important to this discussion.
Access to healthcare as such may not be a constitutional right. The constitution does not establish fire protection districts, police forces, water control and improvement districts, municipal utilities, public libraries or any of the other myriad things that we who live in towns and cities enjoy. Those things are not illegal constructs of the government either. They are part of establishing justice, promoting the general welfare and providing for the common defense.
No one wants to live in a world where they have to either provide their own or do without. Imagine having to hire a private police force for your family.
This country has become so populous that when any significant part of the population suffers, we all suffer. Keeping 48 million people from access to health care affects the other 252 million in a big way.
Whether we call it socialized medicine, civil medicine, national health insurance or chabonga, there has to be a better way of taking care of our national health care needs. There are numerous models already functioning in modern nations. None of them is perfect, but the one thing they all have in common is that delivering health care is the purpose of the system, not profit, as it is in the U.S.
Ask yourself why there were shortages of flu vaccines last winter. Is it because no one wants to avoid the flu? Of course not, but a large demand plus a small supply raises the price that the market will bear.
The largest opposition to any such plan comes invariably from the huge corporations, which oppose anything that will slow down spiraling profits for them. Pharmaceutical and healthcare donors contribute enormous amounts of money to political candidates, and that money buys access and favor. The medical industry will fight efforts to provide for everyone as long as they can. The trick is to prevent our representatives from giving in to them.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 43
Thank you .*********************************
Good article, Ann ... and I completely agree about the "paid out" comment, Joe. The system we have encourages cost overruns terribly.
I worked on an ambulance and in a hospital in a border state...until that time, I never would have guessed how many Canadians came over for medical care. It's amazing.
Socialized medicine isn't the answer either...but I don't know what is...We have insurance and still can't get in to see doctors...
This statistic greatly understates the problem. Many of the 252 million that believe they have health insurance are under insured and don't really appreciate it until someone in the family gets sick. High deductibles and co-pays can sink a family of modest means.
They local county hospital district reported recently that the biggest increase in uncollectable debts were from people with insurance earning $50-$70K per year.
I couldn't agree with you more.
Now exactly how do we convince this criminal administration to forsake all those palm smacking lobby payoffs and implement policy which actually benefits the people first and not big business interests?
Alexander
We have the choice to go across the border for medical care also..but I have to say your reference to the number of Canadians that came over our border were folks who were close enough to do so...not the majority....and it was not the average Canadian with family that could even afford to do this...that was a wealthy privilege..makes sense...
Check this article out...it was written in 1938!!! I will post a small part of it as it is very lengthy...but quite the eye opener...!!!!!!!
The New International, December 1938
William Harvey
What is Socialized Medicine?
From New International, Vol.4 No.12, December 1938, pp.369-372.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O'Callaghan for ETOL.
Movement Afoot
"SOCIALIZING" MEDICINE has been a topic of newspaper comment ever since the beginning of the economic crisis ten years ago. Even before that, there was enough dissatisfaction with medical service to have necessitated the studies of the Committee on the Costs of Medical Care from 1928 to 1931. Recently, every periodical from the New York Times to the pulp magazines such as True Story has discussed the subject over and over again. Most publications appear to be in substantial agreement that some change is necessary, except those representing the Manufacturers Association of American Medicine – the American Medical Association. Upon deeper examination one finds many differences of opinion as to the extent and type of "socialization" that should be undertaken, but the fact remains that there is today more of a popular interest in health and medical care than at any time since the early years of the century, when the most outrageous abuses of quacks and patent medicine manufacturers were curbed as a result of popular demand.
The interest of all classes in these problems is due to several causes: for one thing, people of widely different incomes may have identical health needs; moreover, even the richest cannot feel secure about his health unless at least the infectious diseases are reasonably well checked among all classes. Employers have learned, too, that they lose money by high rates of sickness among workers, with the rapid labor turnover and the constant discontent which they produce. But the most important reason for this sudden, unprecedented concern of the bosses over the health of the workers is that reforms in medical service constitute one of the few important concessions that capitalism can now offer the working class without directly affecting its own interests. As there is a genuine need for such changes, the initiative could safely be left to the spontaneous demand of the people. Naturally, members of the working class, who feel the direct effect of the woefully inadequate health services far more than others, are pressing for new benefits with more insistence than any other group."
The entire article can be found at: http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol04/no12/harvey.htm
I need health care - I have a variety of conditions I cannot afford to treat. It's very saddening to know that some people don't see a need for universal health care.
Donna, I have to agree with you. My friend Debbie from Canada is agonizing over the fact that marrying her American fiancee will cost him a fortune in health insurance. She LOVES the care she receives in Canada and does not pay anything, not even a copay for it.
I have to say that I'm not sold on any of the existing systems as all have their shortcomings. The most promising system I've seen is part of a whole economic overhaul, which can be found in the book I've just finished reading. If you're interested in that, stop by my page where I've posted a review of said book.
People who have TB and do not treat it are contagious. Those who do not have primary physicians are more likely to treat TB intermittently, which leads to antibiotic-resistant strains of the bacteria.
People who receive preventive health care are healthier and better able to fight off infection. Good health makes them less susceptible to infection.
Before form comes thought. First, picture a whole, healthy population - picture it in whatever way works best for you, and be sure to include plenty of happiness, sharing, and flows of joyful service in the picture-----
Second, put words to the picture you're sending out to be "realized" or brought into material form by the powers-that-be: say "This OR something better, for the Highest Good of All." Then release it, knowing that the universe/creator/Love is working to bring this into material form.
God is in the details - you send the big picture, then Love works out the details.
Never! NEVER! However, they are now stealing that power right from under our noses!
Using the Declaration of Independence for justification of your argument for Socialized Medicine is preposterous; that's word-smithing. Like saying it's dark outside because you have your eyes closed and cannot see the sun.
The free market (aka Capitalism), reviled by people who do not understand it, is the most just and humane economic system and the greatest engine of prosperity the world has ever known.
I oppose the dehumanizing assumption that all issues that divide us must be settled at the federal level and forced on every American community, whether by activist judges, a power-hungry executive, or a meddling Congress.
Freedom is an indivisible right and that it includes not only economic liberty but civil liberties and privacy rights as well, all of which are historic rights that our civilization has cherished from time immemorial.
It's tired argument that "we are already paying for it". Healthcare costs are through the roof because our fed. govt. created the HMO's & PPO's as an effort to control medicine and create another corporate giant to steal from everyone. Yes, corps. are private, record profits, stock manipulation by upper management but lobbyists grease the palms of all legislators.
Universal Healthcare is the worst idea, and YES, it is Socialized Medicine. It should go back to free market and between the doctor/patient w/o middleman.
If the fed. govt. didn't take our money (to create more nanny state dependents) , we could all afford the insurance coverage, and employers could assist insuring their workers.
I have an idea, why don't you give me all your money (for the first five months only) because I know more than you and will decide what is best for you. And then I will pay my friends to assist in handling your money, and then, of course, there will be 15-20% administrative costs. Oh, and because the price of food and gas have gone up, I'll want an additional 5% so I can continue to give you the services we originally agreed upon, so we may need the first six months of your salary. Does that work for you too?
Obama's idea will cost an additional $300M per year. Yes, ADDITIONAL! You think, steal from the rich to give to the poor, but what actually happens, you take from the rich and they just raise their prices of whatever it is they produce or supply. Then everyone gets to pay again. What fun!
I would never surrender