October, 2008: Is there a responsibility to provide Universal Health Care?
Is there a responsibility for the United States government to either provide or ensure Universal Health Care for everyone in America? Is it socialism? Is it an issue of national security? Is it a moral issue? Is it too expensive? The debate between liberals and conservatives on health care has been extensive, divisive and has lasted for years.
"The American people understand that good health is the foundation of individual achievement and economic prosperity."
— Democratic platform
"The problems of health care are well-known: it is too expensive, and 47 million people living in the US lack health insurance."
— JohnMcCain.org
In the competition between the conservative and liberal views, health care may be the signature issue. It is also an issue where there is a big divide between this political season's presidential candidates, Barack Obama favoring a liberal solution, John McCain touting a conservative one.
On some things there is agreement: both favor stem cell research, both favor importation of safe drugs from abroad to lower prescription costs, both favor a new emphasis on preventative medicine. But their disagreement on what a reformed health system should look like is profound.
|
Conservative Response
Conservatives win.
You will notice that the Obama plan for health services was NOT Hilary Clinton's health take-over plan (that she proposed when she was in charge of President Clinton's secretive committee on national healthcare reform). It is NOT socialized medicine. In fact, both candidates in this election are talking about conservative solutions to a national issue: how to use tax breaks and incentives to bring better medicine to more people.
|
|
The conservative solution is more about family choice than about government-mandated programs. John McCain proposes to drive down costs through more competition. Give families more choices of healthcare providers, including being able to choose programs from other states. Then allow them to use their own money tax-free, through a tax credit for a family or individual, to
- choose an affordable plan (at least as good as that provided to Congress), and
- put the money saved into a tax-free savings plan for any additional health costs.
Then remove those institutional barriers to lower costs. For example, put an end to frivolous cases and a limit on exorbitant awards in those malpractice lawsuits that arbitrarily raise costs for everyone. States would be able to use innovative approaches to drive down costs and to work with other states to this same end.
|
The money from the tax credit would be sent directly to the insurance provider with the left over amount going to an expanded Health Savings Account. For those unable to access health insurance, such as those with a pre-existing condition, would have access to a Guaranteed Access Plan.
The conservative approach gives individuals and families choices. We think these choices, along with the modernization of Medicare and Medicaid, will drive down costs, and improve health care in this country.
— Editor
|
Liberal Response
Liberalism won.
In the area of health care, it is now a given that government has a critical role in health care for our citizens. We have seen what happens when the the market is left to its own devices: 47 million uninsured Americans, rising premiums, catastrophic health cost that drive families into bankruptcies, quality health care for the wealthy, iffy health care for the rest of us, less and less preventative care covered by insurance, the exorbitant cost of medicines, and the denial of benefits (totally, as in the case of pre-existing conditions, or for particular services at the discretion of insurance companies).
In this election, the issue of health care provides a stunning example of the difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives, embodied in this issue by the McCain/Palin ticket, want to tweak market forces: help lower costs some so that businesses remain competitive; use the tax code to widen healthcare choices; and allow people to save money, tax free, to pay for additional healthcare costs. The GOP platform says that "radical restructuring . would be unwise."
Liberals see this in a different way; we are absolutely committed to the idea that EVERYONE should have access to quality health care, that it is not a privilege for the privileged. Instead, our national goal should be a system that provides everyone with preventative care, and excellent medical services. It would be a mistake, however, to view Obama's plan as "socialized" medicine or as a government-run system. Rather, it is a comprehensive plan that mandates healthcare services through an employer, with new rules for employers so that coverage is not discriminatory, while providing a tax credit to employers for certain costs, such as for catastrophic care.
For those without employer based coverage or small businesses wanting to provide health care, the Obama plan would make available affordable public and private options based on benefits available for members of Congress. A tax credit would be available for those that need help paying their premiums.
Obama's plan would pay for his plan by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000.
Universal access to good medicine — that is what liberals want, and that is what Barack Obama proposes.
— Editor
|
Alternative Response
The Wall Street horror story we are experiencing holds a lesson for health care as well. Leave important public decisions up to the free market and we all pay.
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader points out that "health insurance companies, hospital chains, and drug companies are pouring money into the coffers of" Obama and McCain. Can we trust the two main candidates to bring about REAL change?
We know that 18,000 people a year die because they cannot afford health insurance. We know of the arbitrary abuses of the insurance companies, the corner-cutting of health services providers, and of corporate fraud that sucks resources from the system.
Mr. Nader proposes a simple way to include all Americans in a quality system: extend Medicare to everyone. A single-payer system that discriminates against no one, yet everyone is free to choose the doctor and hospital that best suits them.
Mr. Nader's campaign supports "a single payer system that would save the $350 billion and apply those savings to comprehensively cover everyone without paying more than we already do." In addition, "All Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services. Patients would have free choice of doctor and hospital. Costs would also be controlled in part by the single payer negotiating fees and making bulk purchases."
We now pay, per person, twice what other modern countries do in healthcare services. And we receive less. The two main candidates propose to adjust the current system. The answer is to expand something we already do.
— Editor
|
