The Case for Universal Health Care
Bryan Belrad
April 02, 2008
At this moment, there are approximately 49 million Americans who have absolutely no health insurance. That translates into about one in six people.
Worse still, of those who do have coverage, the vast majority are not so well prepared as they might think. How many stories have we all heard, and not just from word-of-mouth, but on the news, about people whose claims for life-saving procedures had been denied.
There is the girl in California who died after being told her liver transplant was "experimental". There is the man who had to choose which of his fingers he'd like sewn back on. And the grandmother who, in the midst of a heart attack, was not allowed into an ambulance until she made her copay up front. Or the little girl who died of a 104 degree fever because the only hospital in her town was not "on the approved list". Or the family who lost their home because their insurance refused to pay for an emergency hospitalization on the grounds that it was not "pre-authorized".
The tales of tragedy go on and on, all in the name of Profit. How many more must suffer? How many more must die before we realize our folly?
Opponents of universal health care proposals argue that these programs would undermine the capitalist principles that power our economy; that they would "socialize" medicine.
To them, I say, "Who cares?" Does it matter to me if I'm not doing my "patriotic duty" by spending thousands of dollars on a deductible if my own child's life is in danger? Not one bit.
What good is our exalted economy, if we've not the lives to enjoy it? Does our GDP matter even the slightest if just one life is lost because of sheer greed? Does anyone actually believe that a "for profit" health insurance industry has any objective more important to them than generating profits?
There are a number of arguments that opponents of these proposals like to use, every one of them fallacious. They speak of dark and dire times ahead, if health care should fall into the vile clutches of "socialism".
But, let me ask you this: what was the last time you had to pay a deductible for a police visit? When have you ever needed to make a copay to send your child to school? When has anyone ever been told, with their home in flames, that their local fire department is not in "the network", or that a response might take a few days for "underwriting approval", or that their home doesn´t qualify because the raging inferno is a pre-existing condition?
The fact is that every one of these vital services are already "socialized". The whole community pays for them, because they benefit the whole community. What's more, in the case of emergency services, you can never predict when you might need them, and how much it might cost. The only rational solution is to provide these services, at community expense, so that they can respond at any time to anyone who needs them.
The sole exception to this efficient, effective, and logical system is health care.
What´s more, in countries that have universal healthcare, it has been proven to save massive tax dollars.
As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure – and preventing illness and disease costs a whole lot less than performing major surgeries or administering life-long treatments do. Even people who do have health coverage are often hesitant to visit their doctors, even for a basic check-up, because of the demands of deductibles, copays, and caps. If that element were removed, more people would go to have their suspicious lumps, their odd tingles, and their queasy feelings checked out before they turn into cancer, a stroke, or heart disease.
One could literally write a book about the benefits of universal healthcare. But, what are the drawbacks, really? Is there anything so important that it is worth staking our lives on? Is there anything at all?
Failing to establish a functional system for universal healthcare for ALL Americans is just plain stupid. Health care is every bit as vital to both our society and our citizens as having police services. If "socializing" health care is such a terrible idea, why aren´t opponents of it out there campaigning to open up police, fire, library, public school, sewer, and all the other community-financed "socialized" services to the same "Free Market" forces that hold sway over our health care industry today?
Remember: industrialized health care is not "for people", it is "for profit".
Worse still, of those who do have coverage, the vast majority are not so well prepared as they might think. How many stories have we all heard, and not just from word-of-mouth, but on the news, about people whose claims for life-saving procedures had been denied.
There is the girl in California who died after being told her liver transplant was "experimental". There is the man who had to choose which of his fingers he'd like sewn back on. And the grandmother who, in the midst of a heart attack, was not allowed into an ambulance until she made her copay up front. Or the little girl who died of a 104 degree fever because the only hospital in her town was not "on the approved list". Or the family who lost their home because their insurance refused to pay for an emergency hospitalization on the grounds that it was not "pre-authorized".
The tales of tragedy go on and on, all in the name of Profit. How many more must suffer? How many more must die before we realize our folly?
Opponents of universal health care proposals argue that these programs would undermine the capitalist principles that power our economy; that they would "socialize" medicine.
To them, I say, "Who cares?" Does it matter to me if I'm not doing my "patriotic duty" by spending thousands of dollars on a deductible if my own child's life is in danger? Not one bit.
What good is our exalted economy, if we've not the lives to enjoy it? Does our GDP matter even the slightest if just one life is lost because of sheer greed? Does anyone actually believe that a "for profit" health insurance industry has any objective more important to them than generating profits?
There are a number of arguments that opponents of these proposals like to use, every one of them fallacious. They speak of dark and dire times ahead, if health care should fall into the vile clutches of "socialism".
But, let me ask you this: what was the last time you had to pay a deductible for a police visit? When have you ever needed to make a copay to send your child to school? When has anyone ever been told, with their home in flames, that their local fire department is not in "the network", or that a response might take a few days for "underwriting approval", or that their home doesn´t qualify because the raging inferno is a pre-existing condition?
The fact is that every one of these vital services are already "socialized". The whole community pays for them, because they benefit the whole community. What's more, in the case of emergency services, you can never predict when you might need them, and how much it might cost. The only rational solution is to provide these services, at community expense, so that they can respond at any time to anyone who needs them.
The sole exception to this efficient, effective, and logical system is health care.
What´s more, in countries that have universal healthcare, it has been proven to save massive tax dollars.
As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure – and preventing illness and disease costs a whole lot less than performing major surgeries or administering life-long treatments do. Even people who do have health coverage are often hesitant to visit their doctors, even for a basic check-up, because of the demands of deductibles, copays, and caps. If that element were removed, more people would go to have their suspicious lumps, their odd tingles, and their queasy feelings checked out before they turn into cancer, a stroke, or heart disease.
One could literally write a book about the benefits of universal healthcare. But, what are the drawbacks, really? Is there anything so important that it is worth staking our lives on? Is there anything at all?
Failing to establish a functional system for universal healthcare for ALL Americans is just plain stupid. Health care is every bit as vital to both our society and our citizens as having police services. If "socializing" health care is such a terrible idea, why aren´t opponents of it out there campaigning to open up police, fire, library, public school, sewer, and all the other community-financed "socialized" services to the same "Free Market" forces that hold sway over our health care industry today?
Remember: industrialized health care is not "for people", it is "for profit".