|
Volume CXXXIII, Number 10 |
 |
Competitive universal healthcare
BRYANT ANTHONY RICH
COLUMNIST
As Bowdoin students, we are very fortunate-more so than we'll ever fully realize. Surely we are privileged to spend our college experience in this protective, utopian community, but we also have something else that many Americans do not: substantial health insurance.
The vast majority of us are quite used to going to the doctor's office, the dentist, or the hospital and paying our $20 co-payment and going on with our lives thinking very little of it? I know that I did, but what about the less privileged? Even many people who work do not have, or have an inadequate form of health insurance. They have nowhere to turn if they suffer a devastating accident or merely come down with a bad case of the flu.
Great, so that settles it: universal health care is answer, right? Well, I suppose that it is not quite that simple. Part of the reason that American healthcare is so advanced it may be summarized in one word: competition. Remember when drug companies were suddenly allowed to advertise on television? It seems as though now drug commercials' messages of a quick fix to any ailment ranging from heartburn to "male enhancement," not to mention their, often humorous, side effects are everywhere. This is because medicine is a competitive market like any other. This ensures high quality of care but not equity of coverage.
In a sense this form of insurance already exists and consumers are already bearing a tremendous burden. If a person enters an emergency room with a gunshot wound, the hospital is obligated to treat that person whether they have verified their insurance or not. The cost of treating people under these circumstances is passed onto paying consumers and their insurance companies, raising premiums and costs for everybody, employees and firms included.
Still, completely nationalized healthcare could prove to be even worse. It would probably result in decreased quality of care, as well as significantly increased taxes. Taxes would reflect the astronomical cost of care. This would substantially burden firms and their employees. The absence of competition would result in decreased quality of care, because the incentive of increased revenue for firms specializing in innovation as well as hospitals would no longer exist.
I am sure that many people have heard about people in the UK avoiding dental procedures for fear of possible injury. In a John Irving novel, the narrator portrays the Austrian state healthcare system as being so bad that anyone who could afford to would stay in private hospitals
Creating free or affordable government-sponsored insurance solves the major healthcare problems in this country. All Americans would receive adequate healthcare coverage while maintaining the essential competition between private insurance, and government insurance that would ensure that the coverage is adequate. Also, private insurance could specialize in different sorts of coverage, as well as offering more substantial coverage options for those who can afford it.
With the upcoming Democratic primary elections, healthcare will surely be a prominent issue, and it should be. Voters should take this issue seriously, no matter what their opinion, as it should prove to be a major issue for whoever wins the nomination and the election.
Taking on the challenge of providing healthcare to all Americans is difficult but necessary. It will be costly, relatively speaking, but much of the costs could be paid for by rolling-back portions of the Bush tax cuts and avoiding costly, superfluous foreign wars: i.e., Iraq.
So essentially, it comes down to recognizing our priorities. It truly is shameful and unnecessary that so many working Americans go without healthcare, that senior citizens are often forced to choose between food and prescription medication. You might recall one of the infamous "Saturday Night Live" episodes during the 2000 presidential campaign. During a mock debate Al Gore's character described the effects that staggering prescription drugs costs has on a fictitious elderly woman: "Some weeks she has to choose between eating and treating her lyme disease." The joke is funny until you realize that there really are people out there for whom these sorts of sacrifices are a reality.
For information on sending a letter to the editor, please click here.
|
FastCounter by bCentral |