With the 2008 presidential election fast approaching, many heavily debated issues are being brought to the spotlight. Healthcare, a focal point in this election, is a topic of concern and interest for many. The two candidates, Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain have radically different views and courses of action concerning the healthcare situation in America. The main question remains:
In their point/counter point columns Maya takes on Rosen in addressing: Should the government be responsible for providing healthcare to its citizens?
NO
In the past few years, the issue of government-run healthcare has become a major debate. However, many people don’t understand the negative effects government-run healthcare would have on America. Giving healthcare to all citizens would significantly increase taxes. Increased taxes are the last thing families need at this time of financial upheaval. Providing government sponsored healthcare for everyone would also have financial impacts on the tens of thousands of people working in the healthcare industry. Eliminating the healthcare industry would only add to the current problem of high unemployment. The government also has a long history of instituting dysfunctional programs. The department of education, our tax laws, welfare, and so many more government-run programs do operate in a way that is beneficial or efficient. Why give an organization with such a bad track record the role of managing such a complicated program? John McCain recently said that government run healthcare would “force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor”. Senator McCain is right. When a serious issue like one’s health is concerned, government involvement will only complicate the matter. In addition, if healthcare becomes government-sponsored, all medical records would have to be redone. This would cause confusion and hassle in the medical field.
Government-run healthcare would also lower the quality of care one receives. Many potential doctors may be dissuaded from pursuing a career in medicine if the government controls healthcare because they would earn less money. Medical care would also be weaker because it would limit the both the patient’s and the doctor’s flexibility. For example, the government would develop protocol in an attempt to make treatment easier by making it more uniform. Limiting a doctor’s flexibility concerning the options he or she has to use as treatment on the patient will influence care negatively. Doctors’ freedom to make decisions that are best for the specific patient will be taken away, even though not all cases are uniform. Because the government would have a complete monopoly on the healthcare industry, the level of care would go down. With no competition, government workers have little incentive to perform well or offer services.
Some sicknesses, such as those caused by smoking, drugs, and obesity, are self-imposed. Why should healthy people have to pay tax money to help people with these self-imposed illnesses? Is it others’ responsibility to fund the consequences of someone else’s poor decision? Besides, there are other ways for people who are uninsured to receive health services. Government hospitals and non-profit organizations provide medical service to the uninsured. Giving healthcare to all would only fuel other debates. For example, would elective surgeries be covered under the government’s healthcare plan? What about experimental treatment? Most people would probably assume that elective surgeries would not be covered, but there are always hazy areas. What exactly is elective surgery? Often times, what is defined as “elective surgery” improves the health of the person or is actually vital to their well-being. Experimental treatment is similar in that it is often the only option left. But we don’t want people using tax dollars to get a nose job.
The issue of elective surgery shows that the real problem with government healthcare is that it is impossible to predict all the specific incidents that can occur. One healthcare system with one set of rules, procedures, and protocols will not work for everyone. The level of care will decrease, and taxes will rise.
The government will play an unwanted role in peoples’ health and direct their taxes without their consent. Having government-run healthcare would be detrimental not only to the health of the individual but also to the health of our whole country. In this election, it is more important than ever to make sure that healthcare does not become government-run. It is time to end the government meddling in our business and our affairs. Voting against government-run healthcare is the first step in this process.
YES
There are currently 47 million Americans living without healthcare. There are 47 million people who literally can’t afford to get sick. 47 million people who have no way to get better when they get sick, who may be kicked out of a hospital instead of receiving necessary treatment. There are also millions and millions of other Americans who have healthcare but are being denied treatment under their plans. With healthcare costs rising to new highs and more and more families struggling financially, it is now more important than ever to provide healthcare to every single American, regardless of ability to pay. There are certain benefits and rights that we, as Americans, enjoy from our government. We have a public education system, our garbage is picked up by the city on a regular basis, we have parks, paved roads, water systems, and so many other benefits. Nobody questions these services. Why should healthcare be any different? Children should be entitled to both a free public education and free healthcare. What is the role of government if it is not to help the people? A government has a responsibility and duty to the people to provide them with essential and basic rights.
Our Declaration of Independence states that each of us has “certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Healthcare is absolutely necessary for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life itself is threatened with the absence of healthcare. Without healthcare, one’s liberty is also taken. A person becomes prisoner to medical related debt and a prisoner to sickness itself. And how can one even consider pursuing happiness when one is sick with no hope in sight?
A national healthcare program would be beneficial for convenience sake. Centralized paperwork would make it easier to locate and transfer medical records, reducing hassle. A centralized national database would make it easier for doctors to make a prognosis and develop treatment. Most importantly, however, is the fact that doctors would be able to spend time actually treating their patients instead of dealing with insurance companies.
Government-run healthcare would actually decrease taxes because preventive treatment and education would be instituted. In addition, treatment would be administered when symptoms were not too advanced. It is much easier to treat an ailment in its early stages than to wait until the illness becomes worse. People without health insurance often wait until an illness becomes quite serious because they have no money to go to a doctor’s office. Then, they end up in really bad shape in the emergency room. It is required by law that all emergency room patients be treated. The care these patients receive is funded by taxes. With government-run healthcare, taxes would decrease because these unnecessary emergency room visits would be eliminated. Canada is a perfect example to prove this point. Canada has a government-run healthcare system, but they spend less money per capita on health care than the U.S. 31% percent of healthcare money in the U.S goes to the insurance companies (mainly rich CEOs who live as millionaires off the sickness and suffering of others),and that money also goes to the costs associated with paper work. The money that would be saved if we switched to a government-run healthcare system could be enough to provide the entire United States population with insurance. It has been found that countries with government-run healthcare have better systems and healthier people. A study by the World Health Organization found that of 191 countries, the U.S ranks 37th in healthcare systems and 72nd in overall health. Canada ranks better than us in both of these categories. There is no reason for a country that has been successful in so many other ways to fall short in something as basic as healthcare.
As Americans, we spend double the amount of money on healthcare than other developed countries, but we don’t perform nearly as well. America’s rates in life expectancy, infant mortality, and other diseases are relatively poor and don’t even compare to other developed countries with universal healthcare. The U.S is the only fully industrialized country that does not provide healthcare. Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cuba, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, China (Taiwan), and The United Kingdom all provide healthcare to their citizens. Is America any less of a word leader than these countries? I don’t think so. It’s time for America to step up to the plate and follow the example and progress of so many other countries by providing healthcare to all.
Healthcare is also what the people want. A poll taken by CBS news and The New York Times found that nine out of ten people think the healthcare system needs fundamental changes. 36% of people say that the system needs to be completely rebuilt. 52% of people are dissatisfied with what they pay for healthcare, while another one third of the population is very dissatisfied. This poll found that healthcare is tied for the second-most important issue concerning voters for the 2008 election, tied with jobs and the economy and second to the war in Iraq.
The people have spoken, as has the rest of the world. This is the time to bring about change to the healthcare industry. Enough is enough. We can no longer sit idly by and watch the CEOs and top executives of healthcare companies get richer and richer as they continue to deny necessary treatment, even to people who do have insurance. They know that every person they turn down for medical treatment is more money in their pockets. So what incentive do they have to run a moral industry? None. They sit by and watch the sick and dying, and we are letting it happen. This election, let’s end this inequality. It is time to save our country money and better the lives of millions by providing healthcare to each and every American.
Sources
Battista, M.D., John R., and Justine McCabe, Ph.D. “The Case for Universal Healthcare in the United States.” The Connecticut Coalition for Universal Heathcare. 20 Sept. 2008 <http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm>.
David, John. “The pros and cons of universal health care.” News Channel 8 WQAD. 3 May 2005. 22 Oct. 2008 <http:/http://www.wqad.com/global/story.asp?s=3247857/>.
“Health Insurance Costs.” National Coaliton on Healthcare. 22 Sept. 2008 <http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml>.
Leonhardt, David, and Marjorie Connelly. “81% in Poll Say Nation Is Headed on Wrong Track.” The New York Times 4 Apr. 2008.
Messerli, Joe. “Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?” Balanced Politics. 25 Sept. 2008. 25 Sept. 2008 <http://http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm>.
Roper, Robert, ed. “The First Dozen Questions About Government-Run Health Care.” Freedom Works. 27 Apr. 2005. 20 Sept. 2008 <http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2237>.
Sack, Kevin. “Coming Soon: Health Care Debate, Part 2.” The New York Times 2 Mar. 2008.
Sicko, Michael Moore. 2007.
“Single-Payer National Health Insurance.” Physicians for a National Health Program. 23 Sept. 2008 <http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php//>.
Switzer, Robert. “GOP battle with truth.” The Independent Collegian. 18 Sept. 2008. 22 Sept. 2008 <http://media.www.independentcollegian.com/media/storage/paper678/news/2008/09/18/forum/gop-battle.with.truth-3438748.shtml>.
Teixeira, Ruy. “Healthcare for All?” Mother Jones. 27 Sept. 2005. 22 Sept. 2008 <http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2005/09/universal_healthcare.html>.
