Arguments Against Universal Healthcare in America
rate or flag this pageArguments Against Universal Healthcare in America
89The prospect of universal healthcare in America brings out a great deal of arguments from both sides of the political spectrum. I thought I'd take a closer look at some of these arguments. While it might be a good idea to take a closer look at each one individually, the purpose of this article is to provide an overview.
Civilized nations across the globe utilize various forms of universal or nationalized healthcare insurance programs. Germany, the first country to implement national healthcare, did so in the 1880's, decades before America would see the serious development of any kind of health insurance at all.
All of these national healthcare systems in other countries have their own unique ways of accomplishing the goal of universal healthcare. Some have banned private healthcare insurance companies altogether. In other countries, the goal of universal coverage is met through legislation and regulation of the healthcare companies, and by requiring citizens to enroll in one way or another.
Other countries allow private insurance companies to exist as competition, or as supplementation to the national plans to provide additional coverage. Additionally private insurance carriers act in some nations in a complimentary manner to cover such medical services which are not covered under the governments' plans, such as cosmetic treatments.
While, there are many different ways of accomplishing universal healthcare, it is clear that doing so has many important benefits to the medical and financial well-being of the citizens of these nations. Countries with universal healthcare plans generally experience significantly lower infant mortality rates, longer life spans, and a greatly reduced per capita healthcare cost. The general health of the nation as a whole is improved by the prevention of epidemics.
Still, many opponents of universal healthcare in America are not convinced. Indeed, some are adamantly opposed, and exhibit an extreme amount of anger at the very thought of either a publicly funded plan, or government regulation of for-profit healthcare corporations. While many of their stated reasons for this fierce opposition are based obviously on misunderstandings of the specific plans the United States Congress is now considering, some of their arguements are a bit more reasonable.
The Free Market Argument
One of the main reasons for opposition to universal healthcare is the argument of the effectiveness of free markets at providing better results and cost controls. It is generally believed in a free market society that less government involvement produces multiple competing organizations which are theoretically supposed to in turn produce lower costs and increased innovation. This is supposed to result in a better, more affordable end product for the consumer.
When the "end-product" is not a matter of life and death, this model generally works quite well. Even so, there is a fairly large group of Americans who are perfectly satisfied with their healthcare insurance the way it is. This group consists primarily of people whose health insurance premiums are subsidized by their employers, and who have never faced a serious illness - yet, that is. As long as these people stay relatively healthy, and don't face premium payments that consume a large percentage of their income, this group will remain satisfied with things the way they are.
However, there are also a great deal of people who face rising premiums which increasingly eat up larger percentages of their income. For this group of people, the free market model isn't working so well. While premiums are rising across the board, and on average have doubled over the last decade, sometimes even higher raises in premium are occuring, due to such things as simply having a coworker with an ill child, which thus produces higher rates for that entire company.
Other people have experienced the frustrating reality of paying their premiums for years only to discover when they or a covered family member become ill that the insurance provider will not cover the necessary treatments. And once the primary insured, or the spouse or a covered dependent becomes seriously ill, increased premium rates can often become unsustainable, and the insurance irreplacable due to industry wide preexisting condition clauses.
In addition to high premiums, there are large annual deductibles, and caps on how much an insurer will insure you for yearly, and over the course of your lifetime. In the cases of serious illness, these above average premiums, yearly deductibles and over the cap out of pocket expenses can bankrupt a family, and still leave them incapable of funding necessary treatment.
So what the free-market provides us with is usually a very satisfactory insurance program as long as your need for it isn't very strong.
We Have the Best Healthcare in the World, Don't Mess With It
France has the best healthcare in the world, as rated by the World Health Organization. They accomplished this through providing comprehensive universal healthcare and also the utilization of non-profit supplementary providers. The government of France subsidizes 70% of normal expences, but pays 100% of more expensive or long term treatment plans. The compulsory contributions are enforced via a 5.25% deduction from salaries, capital income and other income such as lottery or gambling winnings.
After France on the World Health Organization's list of rankings come 35 other countries before the United States comes in at 37th, just behind Costa Rica. While the United States does rate high in advanced medical technology and procedures, France, Australia, Germany, Sweden, Japan and the United Kingdom rate very well comparatively, and all of these countries have universal healthcare programs. The major difference then being that this advanced medicine is actually reaching the people of their countries, and not just those people who can afford to pay high premiums and/or high out of pocket expenses.
Further, we have fewer doctors per person, obscenely higher death rates among all age groups including infant mortality, and we pay about twice as much as all of the countries mentioned above on healthcare per person on average, including all the people in the U.S. who received no healthcare at all, making the amount even more astonishing. We are less prepared to handle medical crisis, with a lower doctor to patient ratio, and less beds and facilities available per citizen as well.
If Healthcare Workers Face Lowered Compensation, Less People Will Want to Enter the Medical Field
Medical specialists in America do enjoy a very healthy salary, and that certainly is as it should be. Their education costs are higher than most, they have fees, dues, and liability insurance payments to make, and many work long hours putting in extra time to stay abreast of current advancements in knowledge and technique. We certainly wish to maintain highly skilled practitioners, and though we may occassionally hear complaints about the high price of doctor's bills, I'm sure no reasonable person truly begrudges the high salaries of skilled and caring physicians.
That said, there is no evidence to suggest that a program for universal healthcare would limit salaries to such an extent that would cause a loss of skilled talent. Indeed, when compared with other industrialized nations which do enjoy universal healthcare, the United States has a low percentage of doctors.
France has 3.4 doctors per every 1000 citizens. Germany, with the oldest universal healthcare program has 3.5 doctors per every 1000 citizens, as well as even Sweden whose doctors do not enjoy a high level of compensation. Meanwhile the United States with its free-market driven health insurance corporations, has only 2.4 doctors per 1000 citizens.
We Don't Want the Government Deciding What Procedures We Can Have
Would you like to have those decisions made for you by a for-profit healthcare insurance corporation whose main concern is making money? Because that is what we have. There are countless stories of insured individuals being denied treatment, or coverage for treatment, for a variety of reasons.
It is important to understand that healthcare insurance providers do not care about the patient, they care about the bottom line. Our sufferings, illnesses and tragedies do not concern them. It is a business, just business.
Like in any well run business, the executive pay is great, really, really great. In fact the healthcare insurance industry CEO's enjoy an above average CEO compensation, somewhere in the high 7-8 digit range, and those extra digits do not represent cents. They also enjoy many pleasurable perks and lucrative bonuses such as generous stock options. The shareholders also make money. None of this has anything to do with whether a patient lives or dies. The premiums always come in, and the trick of the business is to make sure that as little of that income as is possible through hook and crook is paid back out in claims. That's business.
A 2008 survey of doctors in America showed that the majority of them favored a universal healthcare program. The reason cited was overwhelmingly the fact that private insurers interfere too much with necessary treatments even when the patient has adequate coverage, and the lack of coverage or adequate coverage to cover necessary treatment in other patients.
Why Should Healthy People Have to Pay For the Unhealthy
This is already the situation, up to the point at which insurance providers yank coverage for unhealthy individuals. As discussed before, an ill coworker -or covered dependent of such- raises the premiums for everyone within the group. If a coworker's child has leukemia, you're increased rates are helping to cover that child's treatments.
Even assuming that no individual covered through the group is ill, the premiums are still calculated to help cover high cost treatments for other individuals insured through the same insurance provider, whether or not those individuals are included in your specific insured group.
You might think you can escape this 'share the load' consequence by obtaining insurance outside of employment. However, insurance premiums for individuals are priced even higher, since there is no specific group to spread the costs among should that individual or one of his or her covered dependents become ill.
So while cost sharing is already in effect on insurance plans obtained through private insurers, the difference with a government sponsored program would be that your premiums will not be used to fund shareholder dividends or extremely excessive -astronomical- executive salaries, benefits and other perks. Nor would your premiums be used to fund lobbying purposes or influence politicians. Experts predict a substantial cost saving on these administrative costs of about 14%.
But The Government Can't Even Run the Post Office
The United States Postal Service has been in business for well over 200 years. They are the third largest employer in the country employing over 760,000 Americans with over 32,700 branches across the U.S. They are extremely efficient, very fairly priced and have adapted well to changes in the industry.
So let me get this straight. The governments of Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, Trinidad, Tobago, Venezuela, Brunei, China, Hong Kong, India, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Singapore, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Pakistan, Thailand, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Herzogovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom can all maintain effective universal healthcare programs, but the good old US of A cannot? Rubbish! Indeed, even Irag and Afghanistan have universal healthcare these days, sponsored by the United States War Fund.
All photos courtesy of freedigitalphotos.netThe Burden of Unhealthy Lifestyles
Again, you're already paying for it, to at least some degree. Employed, insured people also smoke and drink, and use illegal drugs, and practice unhealthy eating habits and suffer from a lack of sufficient exercise.
There is some legitimate cause for concern regarding increased premiums due to adding poorer people to the insurance pool. For example, it is certainly true that poor people cannot afford the cost of a healthy diet. Between trying to earn a living and taking care of their family and homes, and their inability to afford healthy foods, they may not have much time, energy or money for exercise programs or other physical recreation. Unless such people are employed by a company which subsidizes a high portion of their insurance premiums, they will likely be currently uninsured, adding a lack of proper medical intervention to their healthcare dilemnas.
In time, this leads to increased medical needs for conditions which may have been averted had proper medical attention been accessible to them earlier. Now faced with full blown, out of control illnesses, they often require a great deal of expensive treatments to try and fix what might have been prevented in the first place with adequate medical care. Again, through higher hospital costs and taxes, you are already paying for this as well.
Adding these individuals to the medical care pool earlier will cost less in the long run, and might just have the added benefit of providing them with the same chance for a healthy life that more fortunate members of our society possess.
Universal Healthcare is Socialism
Socialism in its simplest definition is when industry and resources are owned and controlled by the state or a collective of the people, for the theoretical good of all as opposed to being for the benefit of a few. In a socialist society, there is no private property, or only a very limited ownership, and an egalitarian approach to goods, income and access to resources.
The acheivment of universal healthcare would not qualify as making us a socialist society, it would simply mean that we have acheived equal access to medical care. That's why it's called 'universal healthcare'. It does not mean that overall socialism would follow. While some fringe type individuals would like to see America become a socialist society, it's pretty much crazy to think anyone else does, let alone politicians.
Jesus, by the way, was a socialist.
Establishing Universal Healthcare
I discussed briefly in my opening the fact that there are many different ways of acheiving universal healthcare. The trick for each society is to discover what works for them, and what doesn't.
Though many economic and healthcare experts believe that the single payer system is the most efficient, self sustainable and the best option for us in America, many Americans remain opposed to the concept. In light of that, for us, other options are being considered instead.
It is important to note that it is believed that a great deal of the fear people have concerning a single payer system is due to propaganda put forth both discreetly and overtly by healthcare insurance lobbying firms whose employers would like things to remain the way they are. Currently congress is working on hammering out a compromise, but this effort is hampered by a still misinformed public, politics as usual, and the fact that at least some of the members of congress may be in the pockets of the healthcare insurance industry.
I'll be taking a closer look at different aspects of the healthcare debate over the course of the next few weeks. Feel free to offer suggestions or comments. I take criticism as an opportunity to learn, so don't be hesitant to say what you're thinking. Let me know how you feel, and thank you for reading.
Recommended Read by a Fellow Hubber
- Did the President Lie? Illegal Immigrants and HR 3200
What Obama said: "There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here...Comments2patricias 12 months ago
Pat writes: I started reading this hub expecting an emotional rant, but finished impressed with the amount of information that you provided.
Tricia and I live in England, and have experienced the NHS as patients, parents and through parts of our (varied) careers.
It is FAR from perfect, but for most people it works.
I was born in the USA and still have a few relatives there. Some of my relatives there have chronic illnesses, so I know from them about the anxiety and stress caused by negotiations with insurance companies.
My son had an accident in France when he was a child, that required surgery and a hospital stay. The quality of care he received there was excellent. Until I read your hub I had not known that France is rated 1st in the world for health care.
My son has further experience of the French system because he moved to France to work as an accountant. (He must have really enjoyed the hospital stay LOL) He found that there is a French 'well for work' programme where people in employment are visited in their place of work by a doctor. The object is to reduce time off sick.
I guess that Americans would not like something like that - could be seen as interfering with personal freedom.
I am so pleased to see a rational discussion. I have felt so sat reading about the demonstations and shouting at the 'Town Hall' meetings in the US.
Things Considered 12 months ago
Thank you, Pat, for your kind words. I know the title is a little put-offish, but I wanted to make sure those people looking for arguments against might hear some arguments for. Of course, universal healthcare isn't going to automatically fix everything, people shouldn't expect perfection. But goodness it will be better than what currently exists. Like everything, it's something we'll need to watch and adjust until it is as near perfect as possible.
Thanks again for your comment!
Ralph Deeds 12 months ago
This is an outstanding, well-reasoned analysis and refutation of the arguments against universal health care. Well done!
Ralph Deeds 12 months ago
Here's an email I received just now from a friend that illustrates the problems with the insurance industry:
Dear Family and Friends,
I received a 'phone call today from Memorial Sloan-Kettering. You may recall that, over the last two months, I have informed them twice that, having reached and exceeded my annual "out of pocket cap", for which I paid Health Net, Inc. an extra premium, I no longer owed them payment. I made an exception for two services that were not covered by Medicare and sent $900 to MSKCC in June. That left a bill, for hospital services, of about $5,000.
When I answered the 'phone and was told that it was MSKCC calling, I prepared myself to deal with the expected, "We are sending your account to collections unless you pay us your balance within the next . . . days. But that is not what I heard. Instead, I was told, "We want you to know that your current balance is zero; actually, we need to reimburse you for overpayments."
Once I recovered my composure, I asked which unit they were talking about, the hospital or physician services. Hospital, my caller said, and then she added, "But we are going to check with the physicians' billing department to see if they also owe you a reimbursement."
Once I picked myself up off the floor, I thanked her, decided not to ask the amount of the reimbursement but to await the posting of the credit to my credit card, and to think, in the meantime, about some pricey piece of equipment I might buy for my boat.
Why and how did this happen? Because of my winning grievance against Health Net, Inc. This forced them to renegotiate their payments to MSKCC, and guess what? I get some of my money back.
The moral of this story is NOT that the health insurance industry is actually a bunch of good guys after all; no way. This time they got caught out and hoisted on their own petard. I also convinced them that I knew the game and how to play it well and wasn't going to go away. And that I was bringing in some potentially troublesome allies, just in case.
The moral of the story is, don't take "no" for an answer unless you are absolutely certain that they are right and you are wrong. And then don't give up, don’t pay, and know their policies and practices by heart. And don't lose heart, ever.
This, I hope, is the happy ending to the financial plotline of the Medical Honeymoon. On the medical front, the "other" plotline, all is well at this point.
Saludos,
Ralph Deeds 12 months ago
Here's another item from my morning email:
I'm an oncologist. And I talk to my patients regularly about end of life issues. And these comments by Grassley and others are an insult to doctors and patients everywhere.
Earlier this evening, I spoke with a patient who is dying. I've known this patient for a long time. And in spite of many treatments we've tried for his cancer, nothing has been working. Today, we spoke about his illness, and he told me what he wanted. He told me that he's tired of coming to the emergency room, and he's tired of being admitted to the hospital. He told me that he wanted to be home for the remainder of his life. He told me that he didn't want to suffer. And he told me that he wanted to die peacefully, in his sleep. We spoke about this at length, and he asked me to enroll him in a hospice program.
People have a right to talk about their wishes at the end of life. This includes setting up health care proxies and advanced directives, exploring their wishes about resuscitation efforts, and discussing end-of-life care options such as hospice. It is the responsibility of doctors -- whether they are oncologists or cardiologists or primary care physicians -- to have these discussions with patients and their families. Such discussions ensure that an individual's wishes are respected at the end of life. Any physician will tell you that patients and their families benefit from these discussion. And they benefit whether these discussions occur over 10 years or 10 days.
We need to make it clear to everyone that this provision does one single thing: it allows physicians to be compensated for having these discussions. These discussions happen anyway -- compensated or not. But they need to happen more. And perhaps one of the reasons they don' happen enough is that there is frequently no way for physicians to be reimbursed for them.
Doctors need to speak out against these unconscionable lies. We know the importance of end-of-life counseling. Many, many people have spoken to their doctors about end of life issues as well -- and they should be speaking out as well. It is time that we stopped these awful lies.
Things Considered 12 months ago
I couldn't agree more, Ralph. Thanks for posting those healthcare experiences. I hope people will begin to see that something more effective than tort reform has to be done.
ColdWarBaby 12 months ago
This is a stellar example of an extremely well prepared, researched and written presentation. It is so rationally and pragmatically stated that it really leaves no room for contention.
I really appreciate it.
calfcreek 12 months ago
Thanks for writing. It is indeed a well written piece. I do, however, disagree. First of all I wouldn't trust the WHO any more than I trust the U.N. both of which have shown extreme bias in their summary reports of various issues.
Secondly, your analysis of the Post Office is completely erroneous. UPS and Fed-Ex are much more efficient than the Post Office and have been petitioning for years to be allowed access to daily mail, but have been denied by the government because it well knows that would be the end of the Post Office. There is no way it can compete in a free market. My father worked for the Post Office btw and he loved the people but hated the bureaucrats that ran it.
Finally, you have given no real statistics to prove what you've said, and as we all know in today's climate one can probably find studies on both sides of the argument. But simply to state something as fact doesn't make it so.
Lastly, no one can adequately report just how much government influence which is already knee deep into the health care industry, is the cause of the problems in health care today. Medicare and Medicaid are on their way to eating up upwards of 45% of the national budget by 2050 (CBO). Government run health care in this country will be a disaster.
I so love it when people wax eloquently about government. It is inefficient, obtrusive, overbearing, oppressive and ripe for corruption for political gains. Private industry has many problems as well, but there are market solutions to these problems. There is no solution to government programs. Can you name one large government program that was turned back to private industry? Some have tried this with Medicare and Medicaid, against much resistance from the left; trying to save money. It typically is only minimally effective as the programs tend to grow exponentially, and if the whole program is not shifted, loopholes uphold the status quo.
The free market has done more for the health of the entire world than all of the government programs combined. Just ask the billions that we feed everyday.
Again, thanks for writing and keep it up. You have talent.
knell63 12 months ago
I have been saddened by the downright lies and exagerations the American right have been making about the British NHS, admittedly it's far from perfect but next to a profit concerned market reactive private insurance company I know where I would prefer to place my bets. Surely its the right of every citizen to have at least essential healthcare and not put it down to their ability to pay. Americans need to get away from this idea that anything with a socialist tag is Satans ideology, lets just look at the state free market trading has left the world in.
Good hub, thoroughly enjoyed letting off steam.
Plants and Oils 12 months ago
A very good and thoughtful hub. I think most non-Americans are startled at the opposition to universal health care in the USA. It seems obvious to the rest of us!
surfzen 12 months ago
I have been marketing health insurance for almost 40 years I can tell you that 7 companies in America control all the Health Plans that are available to consumers and like the oil and gas industry, the prices are fixed and controlled by the seven. There has never been any competition price wise between the hundreds of plans available. I pay $746 per month for my wife's Kaiser plan. She was grandfathered when I turned 65 and went on Medicare which terminated our group plan. She cannot switch to any other company due to a pre existing condition clause so we are stuck. We can pay Kaiser or have NO COVERAGE. One of the guys that surfs nearby has a daughter who is inline for a liver transplant and she is locked into a $1500 a month premium with no possiblilty of relief. Each year on anniversary I shop her case with over 60 companies. No luck for over 5 years now.
Actuaries in the insurance industry project that only about 10 million people will opt for the public plan and that competition will come into play for the first time in decades since the consolidation of all the companies into the big 7.
The VA health plan is an excellant example of "socialized medicine." Government owned hospitals and clinics and Government paid physicians and staff. Reforms are taking place at the VA as ordered by the new president. It will be fixed. One of my best friends was able to take advantage of the VA program during his fight with pancreatic cancer, but his wife has no coverage, is that fair. She has cancer too. I believe that our soldiers who faced combat are certainly entitled to free or nearly free health coverage for life but what about widows and children...They are out of luck. Obama's reform will take care of that problem and not at a cost but as a huge multi billion dollar savings to taxpayers. Blue Cross will fourish as will the other carriers. who are automating many of the heretofore administrative costs. For instance, my lastest cancer tests were e mailed to me and are on KP.Org for me to see 24 hours per day so that I am much better informed as a patient now. I don't have to take someone's time on the phone to get my information. Drug companies have run rampant, My Flomax costs me nearly $100 copay each refill and I raised caine and was told that Kaiser pays almost $600 for the prescription and they get the difference from medicare. In 8 years there will be generic flomax for a copay of $4 a month but because of drug company lobbyists we are all paying dearly. My doctor says that if I do not take it there is a good chance that I will have a recurrence of cancer so I take it every day.
Americans are totally ignorant of the facts. They get their information from Hannity and Rush.
I am done. But here are some true facts. Most people that I talk to dont even bother to look at the facts. There is no bill to vote on...it is being developed by the crew on both sides of the issue congress. It is our fault, we voted them in. When I saw Arlen Spector stand there like a speechless it all became very clear. The man has no clue and has not done his homework. Remember Ross Perot. He would go to a meeting prepared with a chart of facts. I sent an email to the white house suggesting that the facts be put on a flip chart for the people who are holding the town hall meetings so they can communicate what Obama is doing. Dave Axelrod sent me this today.
8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage
Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
8 common myths about health insurance reform
Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.
Respectfully,
Chuck
someonewhoknows 12 months ago
put those words in a letter and send it to each member of congress and have then sign it with no amendments and have then send it to a well known constiuent in their district for reference and I might believe that.
Ralph Deeds 12 months ago
surtzen, great comment! It's good to hear from someone who actually has had experience in the health care industry and who is able to speak factually rather than spreading lies and rumors about the bills in Congress.
Amanda Severn 12 months ago
I've read a large number of the hubs currently published about Universal Healthcare, plus I've been following some of the forum threads. This hub is by far the most balanced and calm presentation of the arguments that I've seen so far. I hope it gets all the traffic that it deserves.
Ralph Deeds 12 months ago
I agree, Amanda. Here's an editorial from today's NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/opinion/13thu1.h
and an op-ed by Bob Herbert
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/15/opinion/15herber
And a piece by Peter Steinfels
kerryg 12 months ago
What an excellent and thorough refutation of some of the main arguments against single payer/universal health care!
You've just made yourself a new fan. :)
Things Considered 12 months ago
Thanks for the kind words everybody, I do appreciate it. Knell, you're so right about Americans having an irrational fear of the word socialism. Odd too that among the most strident naysayers are a good deal of our elderly folk and veterans who are already benefiting from some of the socialist programs we already have in place. It isn't like we're trying to give everybody a mercedes Benz or a membership to their favorite golf courses, this is healthcare we're talking about. Thanks for your comments.
Things Considered 12 months ago
Surfzen/Chuck thanks so much for posting those myths. We need to dispel as many of them as we can, and you being on the frontline of healthcare issues gives you the personal experience to know. I am certain you are right about the big 7. I've read articles about them working together to defend their own interests. It just makes no sense to trust businessmen with our healthcare. As Plants and Oils said, it seems so obvious.
Things Considered 12 months ago
Ralph, thanks for your links. Interesting to see the situation from these different angles.
Thanks again to everyone for your kind words!
Ralph Deeds 12 months ago
Everybody should watch this video of an interview with a former health insurance company executive--
Ralph Deeds 12 months ago
Why We Need Health Care Reform
By BARACK OBAMA
Published: August 15, 2009
OUR nation is now engaged in a great debate about the future of health care in America. And over the past few weeks, much of the media attention has been focused on the loudest voices. What we haven’t heard are the voices of the millions upon millions of Americans who quietly struggle every day with a system that often works better for the health-insurance companies than it does for them.
These are people like Lori Hitchcock, whom I met in New Hampshire last week. Lori is currently self-employed and trying to start a business, but because she has hepatitis C, she cannot find an insurance company that will cover her. Another woman testified that an insurance company would not cover illnesses related to her internal organs because of an accident she had when she was 5 years old. A man lost his health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because the insurance company discovered that he had gallstones, which he hadn’t known about when he applied for his policy. Because his treatment was delayed, he died.
I hear more and more stories like these every single day, and it is why we are acting so urgently to pass health-insurance reform this year. I don’t have to explain to the nearly 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance how important this is. But it’s just as important for Americans who do have health insurance.
There are four main ways the reform we’re proposing will provide more stability and security to every American.
First, if you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage for yourself and your family — coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job.
Second, reform will finally bring skyrocketing health care costs under control, which will mean real savings for families, businesses and our government. We’ll cut hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies that do nothing to improve care and everything to improve their profits.
Third, by making Medicare more efficient, we’ll be able to ensure that more tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors instead of enriching insurance companies. This will not only help provide today’s seniors with the benefits they’ve been promised; it will also ensure the long-term health of Medicare for tomorrow’s seniors. And our reforms will also reduce the amount our seniors pay for their prescription drugs.
Lastly, reform will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable. A 2007 national survey actually shows that insurance companies discriminated against more than 12 million Americans in the previous three years because they had a pre-existing illness or condition. The companies either refused to cover the person, refused to cover a specific illness or condition or charged a higher premium.
We will put an end to these practices. Our reform will prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of your medical history. Nor will they be allowed to drop your coverage if you get sick. They will not be able to water down your coverage when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. And we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses. No one in America should go broke because they get sick.
Most important, we will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups, preventive care and screening tests like mammograms and colonoscopies. There’s no reason that we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and prostate cancer on the front end. It makes sense, it saves lives and it can also save money.
This is what reform is about. If you don’t have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform. If you have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. You will not be waiting in any lines. This is not about putting the government in charge of your health insurance. I don’t believe anyone should be in charge of your health care decisions but you and your doctor — not government bureaucrats, not insurance companies.
The long and vigorous debate about health care that’s been taking place over the past few months is a good thing. It’s what America’s all about.
But let’s make sure that we talk with one another, and not over one another. We are bound to disagree, but let’s disagree over issues that are real, and not wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that anyone has actually proposed. This is a complicated and critical issue, and it deserves a serious debate.
Despite what we’ve seen on television, I believe that serious debate is taking place at kitchen tables all across America. In the past few years, I’ve received countless letters and questions about health care. Some people are in favor of reform, and others have concerns. But almost everyone understands that something must be done. Almost everyone knows that we must start holding insurance companies accountable and give Americans a greater sense of stability and security when it comes to their health care.
I am confident that when all is said and done, we can forge the consensus we need to achieve this goal. We are already closer to achieving health-insurance reform than we have ever been. We have the American Nurses Association and the American Medical Association on board, because our nation’s nurses and doctors know firsthand how badly we need reform. We have broad agreement in Congress on about 80 percent of what we’re trying to do. And we have an agreement from the drug companies to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. The AARP supports this policy, and agrees with us that reform must happen this year.
In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain. But for all the scare tactics out there, what’s truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing. If we maintain the status quo, we will continue to see 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day. Premiums will continue to skyrocket. Our deficit will continue to grow. And insurance companies will continue to profit by discriminating against sick people.
That is not a future I want for my children, or for yours. And that is not a future I want for the United States of America.
In the end, this isn’t about politics. This is about people’s lives and livelihoods. This is about people’s businesses. This is about America’s future, and whether we will be able to look back years from now and say that this was the moment when we made the changes we needed, and gave our children a better life. I believe we can, and I believe we will.
pgrundy 12 months ago
What an awesome hub! Thank you so much for this. I started reading it expecting yet another off-topic rant about the evils of socialism and Obama-as-Hitler and instead found this excellent informative rebuttal to all the main arguments against universal care, such as they are.
I do hope that Congress is able to pass something that includes a public option. If we end up with some mandate that everyone must buy private insurance it will be a disaster, and if we end up with no health care reform that will be very serious for the nation financially. We always hear about how we can't afford reform and neglect the fact that we can't afford no reform either. Thanks for an excellent overview if this crucial issue.
Gypsy Willow 12 months ago
Amazing hub. Thanks for taking the time to write this. As an ex pat Brit. I have experienced both sides of the argument and being sick in America is scary. There is so much anxiety among sick people here which probably makes for a slower recovery. Friends of mine have opted for bankruptcy over medical bills. The British system is wonderful even if it does have flaws and I never minded paying the reasonable deductions from my monthly pay check. The "I'm alright Jack "attitude of those who can afford health care here in the USA is sad.
Ralph Deeds 12 months ago
Medical bills are the single greatest cause of bankruptcy in the United States.
Things Considered 12 months ago
pgrundy, I too hope they can put through a public option. I am pretty disturbed today to be reading that they're reconsidering it due to resistance from the right and the far right. I'm not sure how these co-ops they're talking about would work. Maybe that would be okay, so I'm not saying anything either way about it, but it maddens me to see people caving in to the demands of the fear mongers. I've also read today that now the end of life counseling is being reconsidered. This is ridiculous. Sarah Palin starts an unfounded 'death panel' rumor and now a good idea is being slashed to accomodate these people? Just disgusting. But we will see.
Gypsy - You're right, absolutely 100% right. I've read about studies that show this to be true. I also agree that it's really sad that those who have don't seem to care about those who don't.
Ralph, I'm sure you're right. It makes absolute sense, and thank you very much for your always sensible and informed contributions.
Hxprof 12 months ago
A well written article. Though I disagree with your conclusions, I do agree that the problems you've pointed to in Ameican healthcare are serious.
One more comment: The WHO put out a seriously biased analysis of world healthcare systems back in 2000. Like another person that commented here, I don't trust WHO or the UN as the UN has an agenda that pushes for more government involvement/intervention in private enterprise and in people's personal lives. Some in America believe that conservatives are moral bogeymen seeking to 'control' people's moral decisions. With the current crowd in power, just keep your eyes open-you ain't seen nothing yet.
Michael Willis 12 months ago
Very good article. Well researched and written! Too bad people will not see the truth because of the propaganda all over the airwaves stirring up people.
The Industry does not want to lose their "Golden Goose."
If nothing changes, it will only get worse. More people will not get medical care, more will die unnecessarily and the Industry will just get fatter on their profits.
Connie Smith 12 months ago
I was quite impressed with this hub. From the writing to the obvious research, it is very well done. It is clearly the best article I have read on the subject.
Things Considered 12 months ago
I do not feel that the WHO's rankings are biased. I do feel that the Cato Institute is biased. They are pro-market, anti-government involvement, and a big part of their mission involves stirring up the masses to believe as they do. Cato is a libertarian think tank, and this and the promotion of their ideas is no secret.
Cato and other similar organizations feel that the WHO report is biased because it takes into consideration such things as accessibility, cost per person, and how likely healthcare costs are to impoverish a family or individual.
Some people find these considerations inappropriate when evaluating the overall effectiveness of a nation's healthcare system. Like I said, as long as you can afford it, and/or stay relatively healthy, there's nothing wrong with our healthcare system. As long as you can afford it.
Comments
Post a Comment