Can We Afford Not To Have Universal Health Care?

by Nicole

Hillary Clinton told reporters this past weekend that, "It would be a big mistake for Democrats to nominate someone who's already conceded on the issue of universal health care.'' I can't help agreeing with her. Universal health care only really works, or even makes sense, if it's just that: Universal.

The point that most insured seem to miss is that they're the ones that are currently footing the bill for our half-assed, non-universal, universal system. When the insured pay their premiums, they're not just paying for their own insurance, they're also paying for the massive emergency room bill that's being racked up by the uninsured. Since emergency departments are the only part of our health care system that is federally required to provide health care to all patients, that's where the uninsured go, en masse, to get medical attention when they're sick. And the insured, not the government, pay for it through inflated bills and insurance premiums.

Because of this existing non-universal, universal system, America's emergency medical system is breaking down. The financial liability that comes with having an emergency department means many hospitals are electing not to have emergency facilities. Those that do exist are over-crowded and overwhelmed. According to a Heritage.org report, in one state surveyed, over 40% of patients seeking treatment at emergency departments had "non-urgent medical problems." Those who do have real emergency medical problems are therefore being put at risk by our current, very arbitrary, emergency health care policy, and our emergency departments are too busy coping with the everyday problems of the uninsured to be able to deal with any real large-scale emergencies.

At the moment the insured are in essence penalized for being prepared. The same goes for companies with health plans for their workers. Those companies that do the right thing by their workforce are not only put at a vast disadvantage when competing against less public-spirited companies, they're also picking up the health care tab for the workers of those companies via inflated premiums. The only way for this imbalance to be addressed is with truly universal health care.

Hillary conceded on Saturday that wages may have to be garnisheed to pay for her plan. So what? Any universal health plan will be far cheaper that the rocketing private insurance premiums individuals and companies are paying now. Think about it for a moment. Compare your health insurance premium (if you have one) to your overall tax bill. I did. Even though I'm young, fit, and have no history of serious illness, I actually pay more per month for my health insurance than I do in federal taxes. How can that be right? How can my health insurance cost more than my share of the overall national budget which funds schools, social services, roads, the military, the war, etc., etc..

It doesn't make sense, and it won't until our health care is taken out of the hands of the greedy health insurance companies, with their out of control profits, which are protected by numerous pieces of highly dubious legislation. Just this past weekend it was reported that a woman called Barbara Antonelli from Staten Island was hounded for a $5 co-pay while on a gurney in the midst of a heart attack. Should our nations health really be in the hands of such a sick system?

Got health insurance, and a little in the bank for a rainy day? Think you’re OK? Think again; A 2007 Newsweek report on health care in our country estimates that to die with dignity even those with insurance will need an additional $300,000 to pay for long term care and other costs that aren’t covered by health insurance. This means that even those with insurance and six or seven figures in the bank are putting their longterm financial security at risk by putting their faith in our current system. As for the rest of us, with illness being the number one cause of bankruptcy, few of us can afford to die. Those that do will have likely surrendered their savings, their home, and their dignity, before their final breath. Now ask yourself again. Can we afford not to have universal health care?

| 02/04/08 | Commentary

It’s crystal clear that the health care system in this country is very badly broken. Less clear to me is why you think Hillary Clinton’s plan is the answer. Her “universal health care” plan is a misnomer; though pretending to be about health care, it’s actually about health insurance. And it certainly won’t be universal. Judging by Republican Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan, on which Clinton’s plan is based, there will be a huge number of people more willing to take the penalty for remaining uninsured than willing to cough up exorbitant insurance premiums that they can’t afford. What we really need is a single payer plan that takes insurance industry profit out of the equation, and substitutes actual affordable and universal health care. While hardly that, Obama’s plan is closer to that ideal than Clinton’s and certainly not about punishing people for not paying what they cannot afford.

Comments

I agree with the comment above. Hillary's plan is NOT universal healthCARE - far from it. It's nothing more than an expansion of the very problem with our system - the fragmented, for profit, private INSURANCE INDUSTRY. Obama's plan also keeps the insurance companies at the table and doesn't provide universal healthCARE but, at least, no one is forced to pay for something they can't afford and will seek to deny them when they need it.

Insurance is NOT healthcare! Remember, by law and for profit, the incentive of these insurance companies is to NOT provide care. Market principles don't apply to healthcare in the same way they do cars or shoes, which increase profits by providing more, not less.

But back to Hillary’s plan (the same plan Romney has already proven a failure) but which will be called socialized medicine in spite of the fact that the opposite is true and it is So, Hillary might as well do the right thing and support real reform, REALLY take on the insurance industry (actions speak louder than words) and discuss the true facts. We CAN have single payer - Improved Medicare For All. However, the PUBLIC sentiment according to every poll shows 60% and more of Americans want a single-payer system, EVEN IF IT MEANT HIGHER TAXES, Which it won't (don't believe the lies). And since our mass media continues to lie about it, distort it and call it socialized medicine, if Americans really understood how it worked I'm confident the polls would increase to 70% or more. Just as major networks didn't allow Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich to participate in debates, the corporations and their mass media don't allow the American people to receive all the relevant info. So despite this 60% and more, depending on the polls, want Single-Payer, even with all the lies.

No matter who wins the nomination, it is up to us to insist they support the real solution - Single-Payer. If everyone would write to Hillary and Obama and let them know we want the real reform, it will make a difference. Personally, I think Obama is more open and that is one of many reasons I voted for him in the primaries.