Universal Health Care in the United States
If anything highlights the dysfunctional and perhaps self-destructive nature of politics, it is the health care debate that has been raging over the past month or so. Let me first question Obama's decision to push this in the summer, July and August are notoriously slow political months and certainly I do not believe it has helped his cause. Here's my various thoughts on the health care debate in this country.
#1- What are we getting for our taxes in this country?
In a brilliant Daily Show clip, John Oliver goes to a anti-tax tea party in New Jersey. A protester tells him "New Jersey has the highest property taxes in the nation" to which his biting reply is "And what are you getting for it, because this is an awful state!" I wonder the same thing about our taxes, surely as far as social programs go, health care should be a priority. Yet European nations almost universally have universal health coverage, and moderate-to-high tax rates. Spain, for example has a well funded education system, a fantastic public transportation network, and universal health care. What everyone says is "Oh, European socialists have tax systems that kill business." European politics does put a bit of a stranglehold on business, and while I have no evidence to back this up, I would put it down more to regulation and disincentives to entrepeneurship, innovation, and R&D more than the tax levels. Perhaps not in Northern Europe, but I don't know for sure. The point which rends all of this argument moot anyways, is that in several OECD (1st World Countries) such as Spain and Italy, they actually have lower tax rates than some places in the United States! There was an article in the left-leaning Spanish paper El Pais that pointed out that in New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, and a few other predominantly Northeastern states, the overall tax rates are higher in the American states! Which begs the question of how efficiently our tax dollars are being spent. (answer: not
#2- Universal Health Care in a European form is not feasible for the United States
Our health care is generally pretty good, with advancing technology, new medications, and generally short wait times. The US can provide health care for all of its' citizens, though a European-style National Health Service is probably not apt for the process. Particularly in a time with economic crisis and unparalleled government deficits and debt, we simply cannot afford the $1 trillion-dollar plus systems they have. To Obama's credit, he has realized this and his plan would not replace private insurers as much as it would cover those unable to procure this insurance for a variety of reasons. Having just spent trillions to avert financial armageddon, the US simply does not have the finances for this. Nor is it necessarily the best plan. But I think Obama's plan, however much of a scaled-down version it is, is also not financially doable for the US. Frankly as it stands, no large-scale overhaul, of any social service right now. We're looking at a $2trillion deficit right now. Unless we want to burden further the future generations of Americans, our priority's right now are to stabilize the economy and slow the sea of debt that the United States government is drowning in.
#3- Republicans are wrong in their rhetoric
On the Republican side, "Swift-boat" style ads are drumming up fears of "death panels" drawing on a specific part of legislation that simply provides for end-of-life-planning. Like hospice care, getting your will together, etc. There's a lot of people with terminal conditions in this country and many more that very old. Life-planning is an extremely, rational, important step. There is the concern of scarcity and a government-run health care that would have red-tape amok and an inefficient bureaucracy, these are very legitimate concerns. However, the "health care is between you and your doctor" ad by anti-ObamaCare activists is ridiculous. There's already massive bureaucracies out there, they are called the insurance companies. I personally have dealt with them extensively and while they have always allowed me to take expensive exams and such in a timely manner, some of the smallest things like getting reimbursed for medication is a time-intensive process. The scarcity argument and bureaucracy are ones they should expound upon, they do bring up legitimate concerns but not surprisingly, are going about it in the wrong way. But do the ends justify the means? I can see an anti-ObamaCare advocate justifying it by saying the other topics are simply not sexy enough (financial issues, scarcity) so they have to drum it up to accomplish their goal, derailing national health care.
#4- Democrats are wrong in their planning and rhetoric
This shouldn't surprise anyone, as the only thing the two parties can ever agree on civilly is how to pad each others pockets and keep any real independent groups out of government. But the Dems are equally culpable as the Republicans on slander and misinformation. Let's start with the plan first, obvious in a wholly Democratic-led government, it is their responsibility to lead the way, and the GOP will simply play defense. That is exactly how the Dems behaved during the Bush administration, it's natural. But they have failed poorly here, it seems none can agree on specifically what they are aiming for. The Congressional Dems want one thing, Obama says another, and the Health Secretary says another thing. Are we looking at a universal health care system? Is it going to be government run, or like Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac (probably poor examples to bring up) government-sponsored. Often they talk about creating a health care cooperative, but I question whether one can be financially healthy when a sizeable portion of their mission would presumably be insuring people who have difficulty getting coverage from existing insurers. All in all, they have done a terrible job of articulating their plan to the point numerous Democrats have said they will not support the current bill. But they are wrong in their rhetoric as well, senior Democrats have labelled anti-ObamaCare activists as "an angry mob" and figuratively as archaic hillbillies who are stuck in the 19th century. These people have legitimate concerns about the size and scope of the US Federal government, and in light of the massive expansion of government over the past 2 years or so, they are fairly justified. The US government has taken over large banks, an automaker, and pumped trillions into the economy in exchange for equity.
I'll cut it off for now, even if I haven't fully developed my thoughts.
1 comment:
Good post.
With #1, I think our tax dollars are spent efficiently - in that corruption and waste is relatively low. However, I think taxes are spent efficiently on the wrong things, like the military. And lets be honest, outspending the rest of the world in military expenditures is not sustainable.
#2 a single payer system isn't the only option. The Swiss Model has many desirable characteristics and private industry does all the insurance.
#3 the argument about massive bureaucracies between you and your doctor is that if you don't like your insurer you can switch unless it is the federal government. This doesn't work for a lot of people, who can't switch, and ignores the massive government spending on medicare, medicaid, chips, and other health insurance.
#4 there are two problems with healthcare, an insurance problem (lots of uninsured people) and a cost problem (costs are too high and growing too fast). The democrats seem intent on addressing the insurance problem but only pretending to fix the cost problem (a public insurer? really? that's your plan to keep down costs!?).
Post a Comment