Imagine working tirelessly at some thankless minimum-wage job just to scrape together enough money to cover the cost of living. Being broke means taking shortcuts. Not only do you have to forego luxury items such as nice TVs and fancy vacations, but basic needs like yearly doctor visits.
As a result, preventable and treatable health problems perpetually flare up, causing serious complications leading to poor health and early death—all due to the lack of financial access to proper medical attention.
In a wealthy nation like the United States, it is outrageous that hardworking individuals must surrender basic social rights by excluding health insurance from their budgets.
Some Wisconsin politicians are aggressively acting to prevent such diligent, economically disadvantaged people from getting access to basic health-care by opposing expansion of current programs as proposed by Gov. Jim Doyle. His brazen new health-care initiatives have unleashed a hailstorm of criticism from conservative opponents.
There are various components of Doyle's plan that, if implemented, would not only make progress in the direction of social equality, but could act as a life preserver in our state's floundering health-care system.
For starters, the proposed transition from paper medical records to an Internet library would be helpful. Doctors would have greater access to more complete information regarding patients' allergies, medical history and current medications, which is especially important when seconds draw the line between life and death. The switch would save money and increase efficiency, as the cost of storage and maintenance of paper records incurs frivolous charges that add up in the long run.
Even the controversial $1.25 increase in Wisconsin's cigarette tax could serve as a valuable tool in keeping our health-care system up to date. The new tax would bring in a projected $250 million annually that would fund anti-smoking campaigns and treatment of smoking-related ailments among the poor.
Furthermore, if the tax has the effect of reducing cigarette sales and generating less state money than expected, it would still be beneficial in lowering the demand from health-care services resulting from tobacco-related illnesses. Lower demand means people will pay less for health-care, which makes this basic need more available to everyone.
Perhaps most significantly, coverage would extended to 98 percent of state residents and their children. The health-care demand, and hence the cost, would go down because people would make regular doctor's appointments and not just emergency visits.
Additionally, one of the major costs in the increase of hospital visits for individuals is that public hospitals are obligated to treat everyone who walks into the emergency room, whether they have insurance or not. In order to treat those without coverage, facilities are forced to pass along that cost to those who can pay, which accounts for some of the price increases of hospital stays.
Although this plan is not perfect and ought to be scrutinized for potential flaws and unintended consequences, it is a tremendously ambitious move up a rung on the ladder of social fairness.
As time goes on, new measures should work out whatever kinks there may be in Doyle's bold initiatives. Through this, the threads of social injustice may unravel and our health-care system may be adequately maintained.
