The selling points in support of the proposed health care reform bill are: not being able to deny coverage based upon preexisting conditions, giving all Amercan citizens healthcare, arming the patients with information about end of life care, and supporting a standardized minimum level of care to protect both adults and children. The argument against this has been increased spending, diluting health care, less individual control, rationing of care, and loss of conscience.
If the arguement is solely about health care, why can't we agree upon a plan if we all want health care? The real issue is actually much deeper than the selling points. The selling points are there to intentionally or unintentionally distract because if the root of the matter were really being argued, we could never even hope to agree on the bill. The conservatives argue the issue is about the intrusion of government onto personal rights. They argue they support universal health care, but not in the proposed bill Obama would like to pass. The liberals argue they want universal health care, and this is how we address it. They deny a "government takeover."
So let's take a look at what's really going on. If the republicans argue this is a government takeover, can there be any merit to their arguement? Health care accounts for one fifth of the nation's total economy. During this present administration's short time in office, they have proposed sweeping legislation to control the financial sector, automobile industry, education, and energy. Keep in mind, they already control the millitary, and continue to seek to disarm the public with gun control legislation. With the government controlling and seeking to control basically every aspect of the American life, it is very reasonable this is a move from liberals for a government takeover.
On the other hand, the liberals argue this legislation will adquately deliver much needed health care to all American citizens. I disagree with this statement for many reasons. First, having insurance does not equate with having good health care. The government will tell you otherwise and cite a Harvard University study done over 10 years ago. The study is a comparison in health outcomes between the insured and uninsured. The problem with the study is it can never account for all the reasons an unisured person can be more sick than an insured person. This doesn't mean that insuring the person will give them good health. Maybe the unisured person has bad habits which a person who went out and bought health insurance doesn't have. Also, the criteria for judging health was a subjective rating by both the patients and doctors. If I wanted to have someone give me health insurance and I were uninsured, would I write on a survey I believe my health is better than an insured person's health? Absolutely not. Futhermore, if I spent my hard earned money and purchased insurance, would I say I think my heath is worse off by having insurance? You can see how subjective ratings can be misleading. What is ultimately the most misleading is that the study compares the uninsured with people who bought private insurance. It threw out medicare and medicaid which are government programs. I have argued private insurance is much better than the "public option" or government insurance. If anything, this study would support my argument better than theirs. Of course private insurance health outcomes are better than uninsured. Why don't they compare the uninsured with the government plans since that is what they are arguing for? This question is left mysteriously unanswered. One thing is clear, private insurance exceeds non insurance.
How does private insurance compare to public insurance? The two most logical comparisons would be between the United States and Canada, and the United States and Western Europe.
I've already written before about how cancer survival rates are much better in the United States than Europe or Canada. Likewise, the time to see your physician is much less. I'll instead take this moment to address the counter argument from the liberals. Michael Moore produced a statistic which shows infant mortality is less in Europe and Canada than the United States. What he fails to report, is that the definition of when we consider a baby alive is different. For example, viability in America is defined at 22 weeks, whereas 28 weeks in France, Denmark, and Sweden, 24 weeks in Italy and the United Kingdom. This means, they don't calculate the death of an infant earlier than these dates. Naturally, the United States would then register a higher infant mortality rate. If you look a the numbers, the infant mortality rate in America per 1000 live births is 6.3, 5 in Italy, 4.8 in Canada and the UK, 4.2 in France, 4.4 in Denmark, and 3.2 in Sweden. So the thousands of additional births in America at weeks earlier gestational ages results in 1.5-3 additional deaths per 1000 births. For any of you who have been around pregnant women, the difference between a 22 weeker and a 28 weeker is night and day. So much development takes place, it's actually extremely remarkable the United States does so well. With the recent adjustments made to make the statistics more comparable, other countries numbers on infant mortality now surpass the United States. It is very reasonable to say, therefore, the care in the United States surpasses that of countries which utilize a government/universal health care system.
So the government plan does not necessarily deliver better health care by insuring Americans in general, and also does not necessarily deliver better health care than what we already have. Is the government plan more sustainable than our existing system? The other prominent government plan in the United States is Medicare. Currently, medicare is on schedule to go bankrupt in 10-15 years. Under the new health care reform bills, no significant changes are being made to medicare. This means it will still go bankrupt in 10-15 years. What will happen to all those people when medicare goes bankrupt? If you look at the reform bills, the financial projection is for 10 years. We've heard the price tag for this plan to be between 1-2 trillion dollars. What we don't hear so much about, is that for the health care reform bill to even have a "chance" at breaking even, it needs to pull money from other bills such as "cap and trade." President Obama says he needs these other bills passed in order to be able to provide health care. Does that mean he's trying to use healthcare to get other bills passed, or does that mean he hasn't came up with enough money to balance the healthcare budget? Either one is inexcusable. If he can't even balance the budget in his 10 year plan without taking into account a faltering medicare plan, what makes us think he can do it after 10 years? I have already argued Obama would likely take the money from elsewhere (rationing of care, higher taxes, etc.). Clearly, his plan is not selfsustaining, and would likely go bankrupt at the same time medicare does, unless the United States goes bankrupt first.
No comments:
Post a Comment