The preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which is our true blueprint for government says the following: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” I would argue that very few things are more important to promoting the general welfare than having quality health care available to the citizenry. In addition, promoting the general welfare should also govern the regulations that keep our food safe, our environment clean and our financial markets secure.
Even if one accepted the argument that health care is not an express right, should we not as a moral country seek to assure that all have access to health care. Is it just for a country to have a system that sends increasing numbers of it’s citizens into filing bankruptcy?
“The results of a study to be published in the August issue of the American Journal of Medicine show that "medical problems contributed to nearly two-thirds (62.1 percent) of all bankruptcies in 2007." More strikingly -- "between 2001 and 2007, the proportion of all bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6 percent.”
Past studies have also indicated that the vast majority of those forced into bankruptcy, were insured, yet still unable to pay their bills.
Now every other advanced government in the world provides health care to its citizens. Though some are more efficient than others, all seem to spend less and achieve better results than
the U.S. “ In 2002 the United States spent $5,267 per person on health care. Canada spent $2,931; Germany spent $2,817; Britain spent only $2,160. Yet the United States has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than any of these countries.”
None of the proposals being debated in the congress will be a “socialized medicine” program like the Canadian or British system. In the British system doctors are employed and paid by the government. Canadian doctors, however, run their own private practices and bill the government. So the argument that Doctors will not be paid under a national health care program is a false one. Personally I would prefer the single payer type system and take the profit motive out of health care. That, however, is not happening under any current proposal.
Many Americans continue to proclaim the US as the best country in the world. How can we be the best country in the world when we have
infant mortality rates higher than such world powers as Slovenia, Cuba, and the Czech Republic? We need to understand that we can learn from the experiences of other countries, and use that knowledge to craft a system that works for us.
An article (read the entire article) in the Boston Globe, explains in detail how France and the Netherlands approach health care. There are differences between the two countries approach, but in both virtually all are covered. The government in both countries is involved in regulating prices and setting budgets. The people pay for health insurance through a combination of private payment and taxes.
The author conducted extensive research over the course of a month. This is what he found:
“But in the course of a few dozen lengthy interviews, not once did I encounter an interview subject who wanted to trade places with an American. And it was easy enough to see why. People in these countries were getting precisely what most Americans say they want: Timely, quality care. Physicians felt free to practice medicine the way they wanted; companies got to concentrate on their lines of business, rather than develop expertise in managing health benefits. But, in contrast with the US, everybody had insurance. The papers weren’t filled with stories of people going bankrupt or skipping medical care because they couldn’t afford to pay their bills. And they did all this while paying substantially less, overall, than we do.”
As to the specialized care question, the article does state that the French and Dutch do have longer waits for specialty care. Those waits do not seem to have a detrimental effect on overall health. In addition, as the article points out, few in those countries decide to skip the specialist because they could not afford it.
In addition, while the US does have some advantages in cancer treatment, those numbers are not as significant as critics suggest.
“And, it’s true, the US has, overall, the world’s highest five-year survival rate for cancer. But that’s partly a product of the unparalleled amount of government-funded research in the US - something health care reform would not diminish. Besides, it’s not as if the gap is as large or meaningful as reform critics frequently suggest. France (like a few other European countries) has survival rates that are generally close and, for some cancers, higher.”
Even the much maligned (by the G.O.P) Canadian system offered excellent results in
cancer treatment.
“For breast cancer, Cuba had the highest survival rates -- another country with free health care. The United States was second, and Canada was third, with 82 per cent of women surviving at least five years.”
The same article also points out that survival rates varied widely by region across the United States, and that survival rates for African-Americans were significantly lower across the board. It does not take a statistician to figure out that economic standing has a serious impact on the quality of care one receives in the U.S. In Canada, The Canada Health Act, dictates what services must be provided by a province to its citizens. Those, essentially, are to provide healthcare to every citizen regardless of age, economic status, or pre-existing condition. If a province does not meet these requirements, the federal government can withhold its transfer of funds.
The bottom line for me is that health care reform is necessary if we are to regain our standard of living.
Ranking 16th out of 20 advanced nations is not good enough.
There will always be obstacles to overcome to achieve success in business and in life. Those obstacles, however, should not be insurmountable. In a land of plenty, it is not too much to ask those who have plenty to pay a fair share for the opportunity they have been given.
In a country as rich and blessed as we are, our goal should be to improve the quality of life and the opportunity for all. As FDR said:
“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
Providing does not mean handouts. But it does mean leveling the playing field. It means fair wages for all, not exorbitant salaries for CEO’s. It is fairness and justice; we seek, for that is the “American Way”.
