Reflections on the Healthcare Debate

I read the Voice, occasionally. I read the healthcare debate. I’ll be honest, I was a bit taken aback with the lack of statistical or evidential backing in the argumentation. So, I figured I’d throw in my two cents. Without further ado, here’s what I think about healthcare reform:

A first question everyone brings up is that healthcare reform might have variable effects upon the economy. Heritage Foundation Scholar Robert Book describes it with the “No Free Lunch” principle: “Any money the federal government spends on health care reform, health IT, Medicaid, roads and bridges, or anything else has to come from somewhere. And that ‘somewhere’ is either increased taxes, more borrowing, or inflation of the currency, any combination of which would cancel out any ‘stimulus’ effect of the new spending…. There is no such thing as a free lunch.” James Kvaal, an expert at the Center for American Progess, however, views the situation differently. For Kvaal, the current healthcare system is broken and it’s having a tremendously negative effect on the economy: “Health care costs grow faster than the rest of the economy, straining families, businesses, and government budgets…. high health care costs put many American businesses at a disadvantage to their foreign competitors…. Second, ever-rising health care costs are threatening to drive an unsustainable explosion in the national debt. …. If health reform slows growth in health care costs, it could be the most fiscally responsible course, even at the cost of higher deficits in the short term.” Indeed, as the healthcare system puts America at a competitive disadvantage in the international business world, these effects will be felt globally as American companies fail to cope with high healthcare costs and a whacky system. There’s certainly validity to the arguments on both sides, but one thing is certain: healthcare is broken, and it’s having a profoundly negative impact on the American economy. If this is the case, then reform is certainly the best choice. So how?

Canada is often presented as an example of why socialized medicine might fail in the United States. However, the distinction often missed here is that Canadian healthcare is a single-payer system, where all citizens are insured by the government. Obama has ruled out this type of system in favor of competition between private insurance companies and a government option, what we hear called the “Public Option.” We don’t have to look much further than the UPS vs. USPS vs. Fedex to understand that the government does not always out-compete private corporations. The government option would help lower healthcare costs for everyone as private companies would have to match prices to those similar to the government. Cuba demonstrates that socialized medicine is not, in fact, doomed to fail. Cuba is a nation whose economy has been nearly strangled by the American trade embargo, but their healthcare system ranks FAR above ours. And concerns about innovation in healthcare ceasing? Unfounded. In fact, “Dr. Gerardo Guillen, the research director of the Cuban Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, … described pioneering pharmaceutical research. The center is experimenting with drugs [for] … prostate cancer and hepatitis C…. Guillen estimates that tens of thousands of people in the United States could be saved from amputations if they had access to this particular drug. It’s not licensed in the United States.” This is, of course, an isolated example, but we see something shocking: a country with nearly 1/10th of our GDP has a much more effective healthcare system, and one that is free for every citizen.

To comment briefly on Gautam’s article, I don’t believe Obama was intentionally trying to slight the medical community. Obama, like most Americans, respects the critical work that doctors do, but realizes that the way it gets carried out could use some changing. In fact, a large portion of doctors support healthcare to prioritize cheaper care. Christopher Hughes, a practicing doctor, writes that, “You cannot frighten physicians with tales of ‘government bureaucrats;’ we deal with insurance bureaucrats day in and day out. The disturbing incentive in the private health insurance market is to reduce the medical loss ratio,” which is an Orwellian way of saying that money actually spent on medical care is a “loss.” Executives, employees and stockholders benefit when less is spent, and it shines through in our interactions with health insurers. I have yet to have Medicare do a “rescission” on a patient, nor refuse to pay for a hospital stay because of a “pre-existing condition.” Hughes’ point is directly from a doctor’s perspective: these are the issues they face every day, denying patients due to pre-existing conditions, being forced into comprising their values to provide the care expected of them, but this can be changed, as the American Medical Association and many other organizations have agreed on a charter: “Most of the large physician organizations have declared their support for broad principles of health care reform that are largely based on equitable distribution of health care resources, or at least a floor for health care access.” But this is a position article, right, so what’s my position? I believe that beyond economic concerns, healthcare reform should be implemented because it is the right thing to do.

Setting aside Nietzsche for the moment, helping those too poor to afford it have access to proper medical care seems to be the single most moral action anyone could commit. I’m all for socialized medicine, but I’m also realistic: we won’t get there in one day. But one thing we can do today is support healthcare reforms which will cut strains on the economy and also, and most importantly, provide the level of medical care that every citizen in the United States of America deserves. I think it’s very easy for those of us with professors or doctors or large-earning parents to overlook the difficulty of acquiring and receiving adequate health coverage. Yet if we imagine a family of three right at the poverty line, making $18,000 per year, only a little more than it costs to send me to Pembroke to write this article, we get a clearer picture of the difficulty. Maybe a little bit of harsh rhetoric is necessary to create the necessary momentum to get these people the adequate healthcare they need.

Maybe we all need to take responsibility for the situation in America; so another one of our family, friends, or neighbors isn’t refused care due to a pre- existing condition. This is the legacy of Ted Kennedy, and one I will proudly take up.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.