Monday, October 15, 2007
Universal Health Care: Paying for the Mistakes of Others
By increasing taxes and making budget cuts to provide health care for all citizens are Americans paying for the faults of others? In the blog "Universal Health Care: Yay or Nay?" the author brings up the idea that, "Yes, you do have a right to health care, just as you have a right to food, shelter and property. However, you have no "right" to force others to provide these things for you - All "free" medical care is paid for through taxes stolen from other people." If taxes are increased to fund a universal health care system will it be increased enough to surpass the current amount families spend on health care? Alan Sager and Deborah Socolar, from the Boston University School of Public Health, use data from Massachusetts to provide a small scale example of the difference in health care costs with and without the universal health care plan. The data that was collected shows that the current expense of health care is greater than the costs of the universal health care plan. Universal health care is able to provide an actual decrease in overall costs by reducing the market power of private insurance companies, decreasing the price of health expenses like prescriptions, nursing home care, in-home care, and other out-of-pocket costs, reducing the cost to employers of providing health care benefits, and universal health care reduces the reliance on government financed health aid services like Medicare and Medicaid as the price for insurance becomes more affordable. Presidential candidate John Edwards' plan for universal health care will enable the U.S. to have universal health care without instating overall higher taxes, more details are provided by Times writer John M. Broder. Universal health care doesn't mean that individual citizens will be paying for the unhealthy habits of one another; under Edwards' plan for example health care will be much the same with reduced costs that will make health care affordable for all rather than free for all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
There is very little evidence shown that correlates infant mortality rates and life expectancy with the quality of healthcare. People are not dying early simply because they can’t receive healthcare. Life expectancy relates to ones environment and personal choices rather than governmental services. While universal healthcare would provide a decrease in overall costs, it would require Americans to pay higher taxes. The increase in demand for healthcare increases the likelihood of poorly performing healthcare facilities and physicians. Quality is sacrificed for cheap prices. People will use and abuse the system which will lead to rationing of care through waiting lists. The right to privacy between doctors and patients could also be eliminated because of governmental control. People will be less inclined to pursue the profession because of the loss of private practice and the possibility of reduced pay. It is not fair for healthy people to take on the burden of those who make harmful decisions like smoking. Universal healthcare is not the answer to our nation’s medical dilemmas. It would only further exhaust the system by making it less beneficial. Would you sacrifice quantity? The government should re-examine the federal budget and allot more money to services like Medicare and Medicaid.
Universal health care doesn't produce an increase in demand for health care, rather it provides a way to cope with the need that is already there. The example I gave of a new system that is being presented in the 2008 election shows that a version of universal health care that will benefit the U.S. will decrease the costs of insurance to make it more affordable. I m talking about the reduced cost of insurance not a reduce in cost in medical visits. The concept presented is much like the system now with reduced costs, people will still be paying for their own insurance and additional costs unless they receive financial aid from the government which is being done today. The reason that a tax will be needed is to be able to decrease insurance cost effectively without decreasing costs elsewhere in the system.
I believe in universal health care but with some exeptions. To be fair to all, the people that are likely to spend more money on health care and health-related serivces should pay a larger cost than those that do not have to pay much for health care. The idea of people supporting their fellow citizens through taxes and other things shows that people are willing to be unselfish. To recieve protection from high costs and private enterprises, there should be universal health care because I believe people are being overcharged by companies that are after money.
joe smith,
Right, the current health care system and the reliance on private insurance companies is technically a fair system. The power that is given to the insurance companies in this system allows them to be wasteful, which has helped to fuel an increase in health care. By eliminating or decreasing the need for a third party the U.S. will have a more direct approach to health care that is cheaper.
Post a Comment