Universal Access Health Care

Despite intense opposition from Republicans in Congress, President Barack Obama hopes to sign a government-run health care system by the end of the year.  A universal health care program or what is popularly known as universal access – or deridedly called socialized health care by conservatives – is simply a health care system run by the government, much like the Medicare (health insurance program for Americans 65 years old and up) and Medicaid (health insurance for low-income Americans).  It is also called a single-payer system. 

Those who object to universal access argue that it is costly, rations health care, will force people and businesses to give up their private insurance, and yet another effort at big government.  Let us examine these arguments individually.

Costly.  Opponents of the program may have just buttressed their arguments with a release by the Congressional Budget Office of a report estimating the cost of universal access plan to the whopping tune of $1.7 trillion!  In a country that is yet to rise from the mire of  economic crisis, not to mention a ballooning deficit, spending such a gigantic amount does not appear to make sense.  And the Obama administration as well as his allies in Congress are yet to give specifics on how to overcome this problem.  At best, Obama is only saying that the money can be raised from savings to be made in the operations of Medicare and Medicaid by addressing, among others, the fraudulent reimbursement practices of some health care providers that cost the government billions of dollars.  There is also suggestion to the effect that employee health care benefits be taxed – although this appears unlikely given Obama’s position during the campaign that health care should be treated as a right, rather than a privilege. 

Rationing.  A government-run health care could end up with people waiting in line to get treatments.  Proponents of universal access counter this by saying that there is already some form of rationing under our current health care system.  For most people with health insurance, unless it is an emergency, they still would have to wait before getting a doctor’s appoinment, which could take weeks or even months.  They argue further that in countries with a national health care system rationing only takes place on elective procedures (non-life threatening).

Destruction of Private Insurance. This is probably not the most convincing argument against universal access.  As Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman observes in his op-ed column in New York Times  Congress should not concern itself so much with the profit margins of private insurance companies.  Republicans in Congress, like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, claim that if a public option is created, individuals and businesses will lose their private health insurance coverage.  But this has been amply countered by Democrats in saying that the current plan being pushed only provides a public option, meaning those who want to be covered by it are free to do so and are not forced to give up their current insurance coverage.  As Obama has repeatedly said, those who want to stay with their current health care providers may do so.  Conservatives and Republicans, however, counter that since a public option would provide cheaper coverage most would certainly switch to it, thereby wiping out private insurance.  But isn’t this counter-intuitive?  It is precisely the high cost of private health insurance that there are 47 million uninsured and another 20 million underinsured.  A public option would make these insurance companies become competitive by lowering their costs while at the same time improving their services to stay afloat. 

Big Government.  House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio recently said that a government-run health care will incur the risk of government inefficiency in delivering services.  He posed the question of whether we would want the same type of service in going to the DMV for our medical treatments.  Instead of doctors, it would be government bureaucrats who would make our health care decisions.  But Jessamyn Conrad debunked the idea of inefficiency in a government-run health care in her book What You Should Know About Politics But Don’t by saying that Medicare actually spends almost 95% of its money directly for health services, and spends only 5% for administering the program as opposed to private insurance companies which spend 15% for administrative costs – one of the major factors for our costly  medical insurance. 

There is of course the argument that universal access is a step toward socialism.  But the question should not really be one of ideology, but rather what works better.  Whether it is called socialism or not if it works for the benefit of the vast majority of people it shouldn’t be a problem.  Besides, we have already been embracing a socialized program in the nature of the Social Security where we contribute to a pool of money which is utilized whenever a member of the program gets ill.  Also, we have long been paying for the medical treatments of people who have been convicted of crimes, not to mention the suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay!