Letters to the Editor

Another look at universal care

Dear editor,

    The opinion article “Universal healthcare  a very bad idea” presents an impassioned and seemingly convincing argument against the United States’ implementation of a universal healthcare system, evidently advocated by terrorists and communists of all sorts.  In fact, the argument presented is quite similar to that I might have presented a few years ago as a young, naïve free-market idealist.
    Unfortunately for the rhetorician, that argument is based on misinformation and ignores issues at the heart of the debate, and I have since been converted by the irrefutable argument of experience. In response, I won’t propose to refute the article piece by piece, but will simply open a few points for further discussion.
    “We currently have the best healthcare system in the world,” confidently states the article, prompting me to do a Google Image Search for the “’O’Rly’ Owl” in response.
    On my way, I decided to do another search and found that the World Health Organization currently rates the United States healthcare system thirtyseventh in the world. Of course such a simplification should not be taken as the final word, as the WHO rankings do admittedly privilege nations already employing a universal healthcare system. The relative financial inefficiency of the U.S. system is what ultimately gave it a lower ranking. Our system supposedly excels where others might struggle (in choice and timeliness), but not to the extent implied in the opinion piece.
    The United States is not some haven for medical refugees on their deathbed in Europe. When my wife’s grandmother, a citizen of the Netherlands residing in Cambridge, Mass., needed an open-heart surgery, did she go down the road to Massachusetts General operated by Harvard Medical School? No, she chose instead to fly back to Europe where she was given quality healthcare at no cost to her.
    I must admit a fleeting jealousy, though only in theory, as I do not envy the surgery. Even if we did have the best healthcare system in the world, as many assert, another question begs to be answered, the question of cost. What good does the “best system” serve if only a select population have access to it? If such a dichotomy were necessary, would a modern moral society not insist on adequate coverage for all instead of “the best” for only a few?  I personally would not mind sacrificing a little in the way of choice and convenience for the knowledge that both my neighbor and I have unfettered access to the care we need.
    Thankfully, with an efficiently-run universal system we would not have to sacrifice much, if anything, in the way of quality while providing coverage for everyone, as evidenced by the success of socialized healthcare in every other civilized Western nation. Massachusetts General, for instance, would not be re-staffed with government issue doctors trained in eight week training programs, who only accepted a federal position for the superior health coverage … The hospital would be still be run by the professionals at Harvard Medical School, only the government would pick up citizens’ bills.
    Of course, that implies a true universal healthcare system, which neither of the current Democratic candidates proposes. We can only hope that such stop-gap plans are merely necessary steps on the way to true universal healthcare. Necessary steps because, as the article accurately pointed out, a sudden switch to universal care is impractical and would cripple our economy—much in the same way an overnight conversion to the “Fair Tax” might, but that discussion is for another time.
    Finally, a good deal of the argument presented in the article is based on the assumption that universal healthcare would only benefit the 47 million U.S. citizens who are currently uninsured. At this point, I must humbly question the author’s experience with health insurance. The rest of America may be “insured,” but, in many cases, that term is invocated by the healthcare industry to provide the illusion of security to the covered. The problem lies in the good ol’ American “value” of profit controlling a sector where morality should have the final word. Generally, coverage costs too much and provides too little.
    I can offer my own personal experience in this matter. I am currently insured through my wife’s employer, known for offering some of the best benefits in this area. Just the same, the best plan we can afford comes with a deductible that represents more than 10 percent of her annual income. Add our responsibility of any remaining costs, and we, like many Americans, live one medical catastrophe away from obliterating our savings. There goes the down payment we might have had for our first house (what of the American dream?).
    I offer those numbers not to engender pity amongst the GCSU community, but simply as an example of our capitalistic healthcare system not delivering where it should, and I count us among the fortunate. Other young couples forced to seek private healthcare, often self-employed or in the lucrative fields of religious ministry or non-profit work, often have to pay in excess of $500 per month for outrageous family plans since the more affordable privately acquired individual plans do not offer maternity coverage.
    Educated young people trying to establish themselves economically (hardly fitting the O’Connor ‘shiftless’ stereotype) are just one demographic the current system is failing. Yes, even the insured have much to gain from a universal healthcare system. Please do not deny us our claim simply because eight million would supposedly rather live the life of luxury than pay for healthcare (though I suspect that at least a few of those eight million might, despite their “adequate income,” be unable to pay for active insurance because of medical debts incurred).
    Again, I offer this counter-point and my personal experience not as the final word on the issue, as my field of study makes me ill-qualified to offer such. We must remember that more than dollars, cents and national prestige are at stake in the debate over healthcare. Human wellness and livelihood should be the first consideration, and evidence shows that, in the healthcare sector, the free market is not regulating itself to adequately provide for the needs of all people, each with an equal claim to life and liberty, no matter their income.

Sincerely,
Jeremy Gore MA,
English Lit.

Posted by Colonnade Archives on Feb 15 2008. Filed under Letters to the Editor, Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry