2008 Woodie Awards
Myths about universal healthcare debunked
Tyler Zimmer
Issue date: 10/2/07 Section: News/Features
Myth #2: "The government can't do anything right, why should it be entrusted to run health insurance?"
If we judiciously look at history and existing public programs, we quickly see the falsity of the claim that the 'government can't do anything right'. Despite the systematic dismantlement and attack on public programs by the Right, initiatives like Social Security, free public education, fire protection services, Medicaid and Medicare (to name just a few) remain enduringly popular and effective. The most compelling aspect of free public education is that it is available to every single citizen and will not ever deny access or throw students out on the street because their parents don't earn enough money. The government does many things well, and when our lawmakers actually believe this and adequately fund public programs, they thrive. Nay-saying conservatives and libertarians would do well to answer why our publicly-owned, Single-Payer military system runs so smoothly, but a health insurance system with similar funding is not even feasible.
Myth #3: "Patient choice would be restricted under such a system."
First of all, how can we even begin to talk about choice when Americans currently covered by private insurance are frequently denied care due to 'pre-existing conditions' or restricted from a host of treatments and procedures because they are 'experimental." Moreover, how can we have a discussion about "choice" without acknowledging that there are currently over 47 million Americans don't even have any health insurance at all? Furthermore, the chronically sick and the elderly are almost always denied coverage by private insurance companies because they aren't good financial investments. Since the only goal of private companies is to make profits, why should we expect them to cover those who actually need health care when the most lucrative clients are those who will turn their bills in on time and never get sick? Remember that when conservatives talk about 'efficiency' in market conditions, that this concept is narrowly defined in terms of profit margins, not the quality or quantity of the coverage they guarantee. Before moving on, we must also note that the concept of choice probably doesn't resonate much for the millions of Americans shackled with exorbitant amounts of debt under our current system (about half of all bankruptcies are due to health costs.) Choice only seems to be a relevant political good once we have already established that there are healthy, educated and confident citizens able to freely make choices.
If we judiciously look at history and existing public programs, we quickly see the falsity of the claim that the 'government can't do anything right'. Despite the systematic dismantlement and attack on public programs by the Right, initiatives like Social Security, free public education, fire protection services, Medicaid and Medicare (to name just a few) remain enduringly popular and effective. The most compelling aspect of free public education is that it is available to every single citizen and will not ever deny access or throw students out on the street because their parents don't earn enough money. The government does many things well, and when our lawmakers actually believe this and adequately fund public programs, they thrive. Nay-saying conservatives and libertarians would do well to answer why our publicly-owned, Single-Payer military system runs so smoothly, but a health insurance system with similar funding is not even feasible.
Myth #3: "Patient choice would be restricted under such a system."
First of all, how can we even begin to talk about choice when Americans currently covered by private insurance are frequently denied care due to 'pre-existing conditions' or restricted from a host of treatments and procedures because they are 'experimental." Moreover, how can we have a discussion about "choice" without acknowledging that there are currently over 47 million Americans don't even have any health insurance at all? Furthermore, the chronically sick and the elderly are almost always denied coverage by private insurance companies because they aren't good financial investments. Since the only goal of private companies is to make profits, why should we expect them to cover those who actually need health care when the most lucrative clients are those who will turn their bills in on time and never get sick? Remember that when conservatives talk about 'efficiency' in market conditions, that this concept is narrowly defined in terms of profit margins, not the quality or quantity of the coverage they guarantee. Before moving on, we must also note that the concept of choice probably doesn't resonate much for the millions of Americans shackled with exorbitant amounts of debt under our current system (about half of all bankruptcies are due to health costs.) Choice only seems to be a relevant political good once we have already established that there are healthy, educated and confident citizens able to freely make choices.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 7
Rick Knox
posted 10/02/07 @ 2:59 PM CST
WOW ?!?!
How come you fail to mention the long waits for healthcare in other countries with socialized programs?
How come you fail to meantion that the current Canadian Medical Assn president Dr. (Continued…)
jacksmith
posted 10/02/07 @ 5:07 PM CST
These people against universal National Health Care For All (HR 676) aren't really concerned about what it would cost. They know we can easily afford it. (Continued…)
Liene
posted 10/07/07 @ 2:58 PM CST
Kudos to you for having the courage to articulately talk about an issue that is so widely misunderstood.
My perspective on this is, admittedly, influenced by the year I spent in France. (Continued…)
Post a Comment