Imagine living in a society where people diagnosed with cancer cannot get treatment because they cannot afford insurance. This is not so difficult to imagine, as it happens every day in the United States (US). Even if the person does have insurance, the amount of coverage and quality of care vary greatly according to the person’s financial position. It seems unbelievable, in today’s world of skyscrapers and worldwide instant communication this should happen. Everyone in the U.S. should have access to an equal standard of health care because disease and accidents do not discriminate, the US is the only industrialized nation that does not offer universal health care to its citizens and insurance prices are skyrocketing.
Many working people oppose universal health care because they do not want more of their money going to taxes that support the health care system. These respectable citizens have worked long hard hours almost every day of their lives. They do not want the money they are saving for their retirement fund to be spent treating a stranger’s illness. These mostly upper middle class Americans earned their livelihoods and do not feel that things were handed to them. They do not want to give away what they worked so hard for.
Another group opposing universal health care is the extremely wealthy. Many of these people are born rich and cannot fathom not being able to afford to go to the dentist for a three hundred dollar procedure. Some of them do not want universal health care, because it maintains a class division and leaves them in a superior position. This is a difficult argument to win, because arguing with an individual about their core belief system in not unlike arguing with an individual about their religion. I hope that compassion for others and comprehension of the realities of social economics will win in this situation.
Diseases and accidents do not discriminate against people because of their financial situations and our healthcare system should not discriminate either. A poor and uninsured person is just as likely to be hit by a drunk driver as a rich person, but the situation changes dramatically after the initial unfortunate incident. The rich person will be taken to an upscale hospital and given the best treatments and medications for the duration of their injury. The poor, uninsured person will go to the nearest emergency room to be treated until his or her condition stabilizes then he or she will be released and sent a bill. Neither the poor person nor the rich person wanted to be hit by the drunk driver; it was simply a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is not fair that the outcomes of this random accident should differ so.
And what type of care should a driver who chose to drink alcohol and then get behind the wheel of an automobile receive? How can they be held responsible for what might appear to be their series of bad choices and be punished with denial of medical care, when alcoholism is a disease and they are the victim? Many diseases are similar to alcoholism in this sense, due to the fact that a person’s choices and actions influencing their susceptibility to the disease are actually an addiction or a genetic predisposition. Smoking can cause lung cancer and a bad diet can influence diabetes and cause other problems, but the smokers and eaters are not smoking and eating with a detrimental intent. While there are not very many non smoking healthy people who want to pay for someone else’s vices, there are not very many smokers that want to get lung cancer.
Most diseases are not the result of an individual’s bad choices. Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a disease that attacks millions of people worldwide, and we do not know the cause. The battle with MS will likely be long, painful, and expensive for anyone with the disease. The rich insured person will be able to travel to the best hospitals and get the best treatments while the poor uninsured person, if treated at all, will go to a local hospital with average or poor MS treatment capabilities. The uninsured person will likely have any equity seized to cover hospital bills, and will have less of a chance of surviving the disease. It does not seem fair that some people get certain diseases and others do not, but it is a tragedy that this disparage in treatment exists.
The current US health care system not only puts a price on the quality of life, but also puts a puts a price on life itself, and this needs to change. In this country, some people have health insurance through their work, some people have health insurance for themselves and their families that they pay for privately, some people have Medicare or Medicaid, and some people do not have any insurance at all. Many hardworking individuals have health insurance, but it does not cover a pre-existing condition. Others have minimal health coverage and become frustrated as symptoms deteriorate while they are being told that they are not sick enough for their insurance to take effect. Universal health care would provide the coverage to change this practice.
Universal health care is not a new idea. It is not a program that needs to be tested with the risk of causing problems and doing damage to the economy. Universal health care is already successful in many countries around the world including Germany, Sweden, Canada, Italy, Spain, Australia, Netherlands, United Kingdom and France. In fact, the US is the only industrialized nation without some form of universal health care.
Each country has its own method of achieving a universal health care system. Andrew Seaman, author of the USA Today article “Health care around the Globe,” observes that “Germany requires people making less than $70,000 a year to have health insurance, which is operated by more than 200 competing, non-profit insurance companies” (Seaman p 7e). The care in Germany is provided by private doctors and private and public hospitals. The citizens pay an income tax to fund the system. In Sweden the “program is funded through central and local taxes and copayments on services. The system is regulated by the national government but the care facilities are organized by the local governments” (Seaman p 7e).
The author also praises Canada’s tax funded universal health care system, “many Canadians purchase insurance to supplement the government program…The majority of doctors are not employed by the government. Hospitals can either be public or private, but budgets are negotiated by the government” (Seaman p 7e). This is similar to Spain where some of the citizens supplement the government insurance. In Spain “the national government decides the direction of the system, while the local governments decide how the health care is delivered” (Seaman p 7e). Most of the hospitals are owned by the government, where the doctors are private practitioners.
Seaman then reports, “Everyone living or working in the Netherlands is required to purchase health insurance. Insurers are required to offer a government mandated standard package and provide coverage to all.” Similar to the Netherlands generous system, Italy provides care to all residents, with funding “from a mix of income taxes, local taxes and copayments” (Seaman p 7e).In Australia, health care is provided for citizens, permanent legal residents. The public hospitals in Australia offer free care (Seaman p 7e).
The author adds that health care in the United Kingdom (UK) is offered to “all people ‘ordinarily resident’ in the country” (Seaman p 7e). The system is funded by general taxation and most services are available for small co-pay or are free. The UK government pays the doctors salary to work in government owned hospitals. In France, everyone living in the country—legally or illegally—is provided insurance. “The main sources of funding are payroll and income taxes; however, the government implements some cost sharing techniques, including co-payments and extra billing” (Seaman p 7e).
The system of cost sharing techniques in France is similar to the Medicaid and Medicare system in the US. To achieve a universal health care system in the US, we do not have a long way to go, but we do have a lot of disparities to overcome. According to Roger Baybee, the author of “Universal Health Care” from DISSENT, approximately forty seven million Americans do not have health insurance. The article asserts “Half of all personal bankruptcies are caused primarily by medical expenses” (Baybee p 64). This epidemic of being uninsured is crippling our country and only universal health care can heal us.
Baybee informs, “Per-capita health care spending reached $6,697 in 2005.” Although the US level of spending is forty percent higher than any other nation the “United States ranked an appalling thirty-seventh overall in World Health Organization figures.” The author finally claims, “The combined profits of the nation’s largest insurance companies and their subsidiaries increased by over 170 percent between 2003 and 2007” (Baybee p 64). This means that the problem is getting worse instead of getting better. We can’t afford to let this continue.
The US needs to learn what is working in other countries and use these successes as examples of what to do here. We need to evaluate our current health care system, address areas that need improvement, and make real changes. Universal Health care will provide the United States and its citizens with a secure and stronger tomorrow.
Works cited
Seaman, Andrew. "Health Care Around the Globe." USA Today 23 Sept. 2009: 7e-7e. Print.
Bybee, Roger. “Universal Health Care” DISSENT Spring 2009: 65-69. Print.
Many working people oppose universal health care because they do not want more of their money going to taxes that support the health care system. These respectable citizens have worked long hard hours almost every day of their lives. They do not want the money they are saving for their retirement fund to be spent treating a stranger’s illness. These mostly upper middle class Americans earned their livelihoods and do not feel that things were handed to them. They do not want to give away what they worked so hard for.
Another group opposing universal health care is the extremely wealthy. Many of these people are born rich and cannot fathom not being able to afford to go to the dentist for a three hundred dollar procedure. Some of them do not want universal health care, because it maintains a class division and leaves them in a superior position. This is a difficult argument to win, because arguing with an individual about their core belief system in not unlike arguing with an individual about their religion. I hope that compassion for others and comprehension of the realities of social economics will win in this situation.
Diseases and accidents do not discriminate against people because of their financial situations and our healthcare system should not discriminate either. A poor and uninsured person is just as likely to be hit by a drunk driver as a rich person, but the situation changes dramatically after the initial unfortunate incident. The rich person will be taken to an upscale hospital and given the best treatments and medications for the duration of their injury. The poor, uninsured person will go to the nearest emergency room to be treated until his or her condition stabilizes then he or she will be released and sent a bill. Neither the poor person nor the rich person wanted to be hit by the drunk driver; it was simply a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is not fair that the outcomes of this random accident should differ so.
And what type of care should a driver who chose to drink alcohol and then get behind the wheel of an automobile receive? How can they be held responsible for what might appear to be their series of bad choices and be punished with denial of medical care, when alcoholism is a disease and they are the victim? Many diseases are similar to alcoholism in this sense, due to the fact that a person’s choices and actions influencing their susceptibility to the disease are actually an addiction or a genetic predisposition. Smoking can cause lung cancer and a bad diet can influence diabetes and cause other problems, but the smokers and eaters are not smoking and eating with a detrimental intent. While there are not very many non smoking healthy people who want to pay for someone else’s vices, there are not very many smokers that want to get lung cancer.
Most diseases are not the result of an individual’s bad choices. Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a disease that attacks millions of people worldwide, and we do not know the cause. The battle with MS will likely be long, painful, and expensive for anyone with the disease. The rich insured person will be able to travel to the best hospitals and get the best treatments while the poor uninsured person, if treated at all, will go to a local hospital with average or poor MS treatment capabilities. The uninsured person will likely have any equity seized to cover hospital bills, and will have less of a chance of surviving the disease. It does not seem fair that some people get certain diseases and others do not, but it is a tragedy that this disparage in treatment exists.
The current US health care system not only puts a price on the quality of life, but also puts a puts a price on life itself, and this needs to change. In this country, some people have health insurance through their work, some people have health insurance for themselves and their families that they pay for privately, some people have Medicare or Medicaid, and some people do not have any insurance at all. Many hardworking individuals have health insurance, but it does not cover a pre-existing condition. Others have minimal health coverage and become frustrated as symptoms deteriorate while they are being told that they are not sick enough for their insurance to take effect. Universal health care would provide the coverage to change this practice.
Universal health care is not a new idea. It is not a program that needs to be tested with the risk of causing problems and doing damage to the economy. Universal health care is already successful in many countries around the world including Germany, Sweden, Canada, Italy, Spain, Australia, Netherlands, United Kingdom and France. In fact, the US is the only industrialized nation without some form of universal health care.
Each country has its own method of achieving a universal health care system. Andrew Seaman, author of the USA Today article “Health care around the Globe,” observes that “Germany requires people making less than $70,000 a year to have health insurance, which is operated by more than 200 competing, non-profit insurance companies” (Seaman p 7e). The care in Germany is provided by private doctors and private and public hospitals. The citizens pay an income tax to fund the system. In Sweden the “program is funded through central and local taxes and copayments on services. The system is regulated by the national government but the care facilities are organized by the local governments” (Seaman p 7e).
The author also praises Canada’s tax funded universal health care system, “many Canadians purchase insurance to supplement the government program…The majority of doctors are not employed by the government. Hospitals can either be public or private, but budgets are negotiated by the government” (Seaman p 7e). This is similar to Spain where some of the citizens supplement the government insurance. In Spain “the national government decides the direction of the system, while the local governments decide how the health care is delivered” (Seaman p 7e). Most of the hospitals are owned by the government, where the doctors are private practitioners.
Seaman then reports, “Everyone living or working in the Netherlands is required to purchase health insurance. Insurers are required to offer a government mandated standard package and provide coverage to all.” Similar to the Netherlands generous system, Italy provides care to all residents, with funding “from a mix of income taxes, local taxes and copayments” (Seaman p 7e).In Australia, health care is provided for citizens, permanent legal residents. The public hospitals in Australia offer free care (Seaman p 7e).
The author adds that health care in the United Kingdom (UK) is offered to “all people ‘ordinarily resident’ in the country” (Seaman p 7e). The system is funded by general taxation and most services are available for small co-pay or are free. The UK government pays the doctors salary to work in government owned hospitals. In France, everyone living in the country—legally or illegally—is provided insurance. “The main sources of funding are payroll and income taxes; however, the government implements some cost sharing techniques, including co-payments and extra billing” (Seaman p 7e).
The system of cost sharing techniques in France is similar to the Medicaid and Medicare system in the US. To achieve a universal health care system in the US, we do not have a long way to go, but we do have a lot of disparities to overcome. According to Roger Baybee, the author of “Universal Health Care” from DISSENT, approximately forty seven million Americans do not have health insurance. The article asserts “Half of all personal bankruptcies are caused primarily by medical expenses” (Baybee p 64). This epidemic of being uninsured is crippling our country and only universal health care can heal us.
Baybee informs, “Per-capita health care spending reached $6,697 in 2005.” Although the US level of spending is forty percent higher than any other nation the “United States ranked an appalling thirty-seventh overall in World Health Organization figures.” The author finally claims, “The combined profits of the nation’s largest insurance companies and their subsidiaries increased by over 170 percent between 2003 and 2007” (Baybee p 64). This means that the problem is getting worse instead of getting better. We can’t afford to let this continue.
The US needs to learn what is working in other countries and use these successes as examples of what to do here. We need to evaluate our current health care system, address areas that need improvement, and make real changes. Universal Health care will provide the United States and its citizens with a secure and stronger tomorrow.
Works cited
Seaman, Andrew. "Health Care Around the Globe." USA Today 23 Sept. 2009: 7e-7e. Print.
Bybee, Roger. “Universal Health Care” DISSENT Spring 2009: 65-69. Print.
Leave a comment
