The Great Health Care Debate

Muaz Halees

We now have pretty good epidemiological evidence that the long-term health consequences of living under our deficient healthcare system are considerable.  There is something inherently American about catering to the “best” while giving much less attention to the average.  We excel at advancing the “best” but fail at moving the average from the middle closer to the front of the line.  The US healthcare system is a definitive “best” strategy.  This economic model of our healthcare system is demoralizing and divisive for what? To benefit the few.  Universal healthcare is the answer because privatized healthcare is obviously not.    

Nationalized healthcare would create a national database alleviating many of the wasteful inefficiencies doctors face during treatment and diagnosis.  Doctors would be able to avoid the insurance premiums, malpractice and liability insurance, insurance submissions, claims approval, and focus on their job—tending to the sick.  Doctors and patients could work hand-in-hand practicing preventative measures.  Patients avoid routine check-ups now because of the lack of coverage, and they pay with their lives later on and we pay as a society for our ignorance.

Many opponents of universal healthcare cite the massive price tag associated with providing it to the masses.  They claim that the only way it could work is through severe taxation or through compulsory coverage premiums. I am of the opinion that a small bump in my taxes is worth improving the lives of my fellow citizens, but I may be in the minority.  Let’s pacify these bottom-liners for a moment.  The Canadian system, which provides universal healthcare, spends 10.5% of its GDP on healthcare.  Juxtapose that with the whopping 16% the US spends on their embarrassing system.  Not to toot the Canadian horn too loudly, but their healthcare system actually outperforms the US system in the two most commonly used quality metrics, life expectancy and infant mortality rates.   

There is also a fear that US citizens may be forced to look elsewhere for medical assistance, à la the Canadians that come to the US for some of their healthcare needs. My counter to that? So what.  Americans are doing that today, as we speak; insured Americans are going to India and South America to get cheaper healthcare.  That option will always be there, and will always be used.  If that criterion is used to degrade universal healthcare, then it must be referenced when highlighting the failures of the current system. 

The next argument volleyed by opponents of universal healthcare is the inefficiencies of the government.  They claim that healthcare system would become the DMV.  But why couldn’t it be as successful and efficient as the US military, or the US-run anti-discrimination agenda, or the CDC.  These same opponents of the US government attack it while living in the safe confines that same inefficient US government provides to them.    

Public enterprise has merits, but the government has a responsibility to ensure the well-being and security of its citizens, not to ensure public enterprise.  The failed healthcare system in this country is our scarlet letter.  Our allegiance to it is deteriorating our sense of social solidarity and our efforts to address the needs and problems of the population as a whole.  We are failing the 50 million uninsured as well as the 100 million underinsured Americans. Universal healthcare is not some utopian edict that will improve the lives of every single citizen.  It is not a strategy for becoming the best; it is a strategy for becoming better. Potential imperfections should not cause us to lose sight of substantial improvements.