Thursday, August 21, 2008

Universal Healthcare

Sorry this is a bit late, I slave away, working nights and usually sleep during the day. Alright, I won't bore you with anymore of my personal life, onto the topic at hand.

Universal healthcare seems to be a hot button topic amongst most of us, especially with the upcoming Presidential election and I thought it'd be nice to get a consensus from the Junto Squad about whether or not you support it or don't. I've researched it a bit and decided to list a few key "pros and cons" to get your opinions flowing. I've added mine and would love to hear yours!
~~~~
It's no secret that health care costs are spiraling out of control in this country. On average, we now spend more per person on health care than both food and housing. Insurance premiums are multiplying much faster than inflation, which prevents economic growth and leaves businesses with less money to give raises or hire more workers. While the quality and availability of medical care in the United States remains among the best in the world, many wonder whether we'd be better off adopting a universal government-controlled health care system like the one used in Canada.
Personally, I don’t believe in the government controlling anything…the very term government control seems a bit hilarious to me, but I’ll list a few interesting Pros as to why it might be beneficial. And yes, to go along with the Pros, I’ll list some Cons respectfully. You’ll have to forgive me ahead of time if they are not evenly matched.

PROS:
  • The number of uninsured citizens has grown to over 40 million. Since health care premiums continue to grow at several times the rate of inflation, many businesses are simply choosing to not offer a health plan, or if they do, to pass on more of the cost to employees. Employees facing higher costs themselves are often choosing to go without health coverage. No health insurance doesn't necessarily mean no health care since there are many clinics and services that are free to indigent individuals. However, any costs not covered by insurance must be absorbed by all the rest of us, which means even higher premiums.
  • Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals. Businesses and individuals that choose to keep their health plans still must pay a much higher amount. Remember, businesses only have a certain amount of money they can spend on labor. If they must spend more on health insurance premiums, they will have less money to spend on raises, new hires, investment, and so on. Individuals who must pay more for premiums have less money to spend on rent, food, and consumer goods; in other words, less money is pumped back into the economy. Thus, health care prevents the country from making a robust economic recovery. A simpler government-controlled system that reduces costs would go a long way in helping that recovery.
  • We can eliminate wasteful inefficiencies such as duplicate paper work, claim approval, insurance submission, etc. Think back to all the times in your life you've had to fill out a medical history, answering the same questions over and over. Think about all the insurance paperwork you've had to fill out and submit. Our current health care system generates an enormous amount of overhead. Every time we go to the doctor, a claim must be submitted, an approval department has to go over the claim, checks have to be mailed, patients are sent co-pay bills, and so on. The thing that's especially wasteful is that each doctor's office usually maintains their own record-keeping system. A universal healthcare plan would allow us to build one centralized system. There would be no need for maintaining insurance information or wasting time submitting claims. The work savings in the banking and postal areas alone would be worth billions every year.

  • Medical professionals can concentrate on healing the patient rather than on insurance procedures, malpractice liability, etc. Doctors have to take classes now simply to understand all the insurance plans out there; they are often restricted by insurance practices, such as what tests can be ordered. Doctors must practice defensive medicine to avoid getting sued. Some physicians are even leaving the profession rather than deal with all these non-medical headaches. A simplified universal health system would allow doctors, nurses, and other medical professions to simply focus on doing what's best for the patient. Medicine is a complex enough subject as it is. Our current system just adds to an already mentally-draining profession.


CONS:
  • There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care? Quick, try to think of one government office that runs efficiently. The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can. We've all heard stories of government waste such as million-dollar cow flatulence studies or the Pentagon's 14 billion dollar Bradley design project that resulted in a vehicle which when struck by a mortar produced a gas that killed every man inside. How about the U.S. income tax system? When originally implemented, it collected 1 percent from the highest income citizens. Look at it today.
  • "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. There's an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as "free" health care. But the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more?
  • Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility. After all, if government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? Then you may say, that's easy, make patients pay for elective surgery. Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up--politics. Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of.
  • Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care. Nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.
  • Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. This also increases the amount of students pursuing entry into P.A school, which is extremely competitive and has waitlists longer than that of medical schools.
I don’t believe in a system that dictates when and how I may receive treatment, I prefer the freedom to choose if/when I go to the doctor. I also prefer the ability to schedule a surgery when I want it, not be put on a list and told to wait. There are valid points to support an interest in universal healthcare, but these are not enough to make me comfortable with accepting this system.
What do you all think?

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm completely torn on this issue. On the one hand, a government should protect it's citizens, and on the other, our current government isn't efficient.

Maybe the answer should be in the private sector. The only problem with that is private sector's are usually only concerned with making money, which is why our health care system is in the state it's in now.

There's no simple solution. Although as someone who has health insurance, I'm not complaining about how it is now. However, as someone who wants to go freelance, I'm faced with a tough situation. I don't make enough to pay for my own health insurance as a freelancer, so I'm sort of stuck working for a company. It's not much of a dilemma, so I can't really speak to those who are drowning under medical bills or who have never had health insurance.

I do know that I'd much rather have my tax money go to health insurance for poor children rather than to fund ridiculous wars (whether that be a war on drugs or a war on terror).

Anonymous said...

All I can say is, I've been without health insurance (both employed and unemployed) and had to pay for doctor's visits and medications (four of them I might add) out of pocket and while that sucked, it was manageable. By law, if someone needed medical attention, they could head to their local ER (which alot of people use as a primary care doctor, something I know because I used to work at a hospital) and receive treatment. I feel extremely nervous about this situation b/c I rather like the freedom of living without universal healthcare...and I don't believe people are drowning under medical bills, there's always options to dealing with them no matter who you are and how much you owe. It's just that no one wants to commit to paying them back, much like credit card bills...and anyways, that's what my tax dollars are for, sadly enough.

Anonymous said...

And thanks M, for being the first (and sadly enough only) person to leave a comment on my session. =)

Wright Family said...

Universal Health Care is bad.

It forces people once again to pay for something they don't use. How do you think single people, elderly, infertile and those that choose not to have children feel about paying for crapy public schools?

Since the taxes are hidden, they may not care so much, but they pay for it.

My family has a lot of medical bills. This year, I was very close to being able to deduct them on my income taxes, just a few hundred $ away. I would have to reach 7.5% of my family income to deduct!! For a time, I had insurance that was not accepted by Heidi & Isaac's OI doctor. We went anyway. We had to. We sacrificed something else. People have to choose priorities. We also found out that the clinic accepts donations & grants to help the under or uninsured.

How about that? Charity doing what it is supposed to do. People in this country are incredibly generous & give away billions of $ each year. If we keep moving toward the mindset that the govt. is supposed to do everything then those $ will go away and some Dept of Homeland security washout from the airport will decide what surgery you need.

Sign me up!

The average wait in the ER in the US is measured in minutes (quite a few in some places, but minutes non-the-less) In the UK (universal healthcare) the wait is measured in hours & the measurements are not accurate at that. It seems that the clock doesn't start until the afflicted is actually in the hospital. So the hospitals are storing them outside in ambulances for hours so they don't start the clock.

Say no to the government.

Want to cut healthcare costs?

Abolish the FDA. Stop frivolous lawsuits & put slimy lawyers out of business.

Let doctors & patients enter into a contract for medical services.

Percocet over the counter - can I get an Amen?!

Sorry, got a little carried away there.

My final thought is that anything the govt touches turns to crap. Please leave us with some freedom!!

Anonymous said...

Amen!

KmD said...

I really cannot add much to the comments here but I just want to add one more to make an even 6 comments - round numbers are better for your health.

On top of Dan's comment that nothing the Government touches will work, the Gub'ment has very little to do with business, and health care is, whether you like it or not, a business. If it weren't, the smartest people would be computer geeks and investment bankers and not surgeons. The limited role of government is to make sure contracts are honored. Perhaps more transparency is needed in how insurance companies elect to pay or deny a service, but having the Gub'ment take the reigns is never a good thing.

And to finish off with the old stand by of personal responsibility, why do we insist on having insurance to pay for everything health related? You do not pay insurance for maintenance on your car - just catastrophic loss. Do you think insurance premiums would be less expensive if they did not cover routine doctor visits? Take better care of yourself, go to a doctor once a year and have insurance in case you break your leg or a lung falls out.

You can go to some clinics in malls and get a check up for like 40 bux and Walmart sells TONS of drugs for like 4 dollars for a months supply. Both are examples of the free market taking care of a need - and doing it more efficiently and inexpensively than the government and their current socialized medicine, Medicare and Medicaid.

The government has controlled interest rates for decades via the Fed and look how well that has turned out. Bazing!