By George E Curry
NNPA Columnist
6/17/2009
The debate over universal health care heats up this week amid false charges that President Obama wants to institute “socialized medicine” and health reform hurts those already covered by private insurers. One of the most important facts to keep in mind is that although the United States spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on healthcare ($7,129 per capita, it is at or near the bottom when it comes to such indicators as infant mortality and life expectancy.
If providing free, universal health care to all citizens is such a bad idea, why has it been adopted in England, Canada, Brazil, Israel, Germany, Australia and Scotland? In fact, the United States is the only industrialized nation in the world that does not provide universal health care for its citizens. Consequently, at least 43 million Americans are without health insurance and that figure is certain to grow with rising unemployment.
“The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers,” Physicians for a National Health Program noted on its Web site. “Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sale and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy.
“Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars.”
By switching to a singlepayer system that covers all medical necessities, it is estimated that savings will amount to more than $350 billion per year.
Obama has made health reform one of his top priorities. Not unexpectedly, some leading Republicans are accusing him of favoring socialized medicine and urging the government to not meddle in affairs that should be handled by the private sector.
A group calling itself Conservatives for Patients’ Rights has already begun running spots on CNN designed to scare the public, saying Obama’s “government-run” plan would cut consumers’ choices.
Factcheck.org notes, “That’s not the type of public plan President Obama has proposed. Nor is such a plan gaining acceptance on Capitol Hill.”
A House summary of the United States National Health Care Act (H.R. 676) introduced by Rep. John Conyers and making its way through Congress states, “The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered healthcare system that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all U.S. residents and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of this legislation is to ensure that all Americans will have access, guaranteed by law, to the highest quality and most cost effective healthcare services regardless of their employment, income, or healthcare status. With over 45-75 million uninsured Americans, and another SO million under-insured, the time has come to change our inefficient and costly fragmented non-healthcare system.”
The summary continues, “The program will cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, inpatient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment. Patients have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics, and practices. No co-pays or deductibles are permissible under this act.”
A recent poll by the New York Times and CBS News found that 57 percent of Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes if it meant universal coverage for all Americans. Thirty-eight percent opposed the idea. Not only is universal health care sound public policy, it can provide an economic advantage as well.
Writing in Canada’s Financial Post, Diane Francis said:
“Universal health care is a cornerstone of smart economic policy. Take, for example, the effect of guaranteed health care on economic activity, business expansion or the public’s sense of wellbeing. If a worker in Canada or Europe or Japan loses his or her job this recession, it’s a psychological and financial blow. But if an American loses his or her job, the family faces financial ruin if sickness strikes any member because they are without healthcare coverage.”
She continued, “Bridge coverage is available but unaffordable for anyone but the wealthy. Worse yet, if a major illness is diagnosed during unemployment, a worker becomes unemployable, bringing about a life sentence of poverty.
“Little wonder, then, that consumer spending has ground to a halt in the United States, which makes the economic meltdown that much harder to combat or ever solve.”
It’s time for the United States to catch up with the rest of the industrialized world by providing universal health care.
[Author Affiliation]
George E. Curry, former editor-in-chief of “Emerge” magazine and the NNPA News Service, is a keynote speaker, moderator, and media coach. He can be reached through his Web site, www.georgecurry.com.