The issue of universal health care has become a dominant issue in today's politics. Many people push for a government-sanctioned universal health care program that covers all Americans, while opponents argue that the system we have now is the best possible way to handle health care.
However, Americans have a significantly lower average life expectancy than people living in Europe and other industrialized nations who all have universal health care policies. The infant mortality rate is also higher in the United States than in countries with government-funded health care. With continuously rising health insurance premiums, an alternative must be sought. A government-funded universal health care program is not only the answer to these issues, but also makes sense on an economic, medical and moral level.
A single-payer system of health care would actually be more cost effective than the system we have now. A single-payer health insurance system would have a single public agency that deals with health care funding, but the delivery of such a system would remain mostly private.
Currently, the health care system in America is the most expensive system in the world on a per-capita basis. In spite of this, not every citizen is provided with a form of medical care coverage. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, roughly 16 percent of the U.S. population did not have any health insurance in 2006.
A single-payer system would cut down prices of medical care by reallocating the money currently spent on the overhead costs required to run hundreds of insurance companies. Cutting down on these expenditures is crucial, a study by the Harvard Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Health Information explains, as about 30 percent of health care costs go to these administrative expenses.
The amount and quality of medical care provided would also improve under a national plan. If insurance companies' provider networks are eliminated, then doctors would no longer be able to obtain patients based on their membership in a provider group. Thus, quality of care should increase as doctors have to compete for patients.
Furthermore, patients are more likely to stay with the same doctors for years since people will no longer switch insurance plans and consequently, provider networks. Thus, doctors would be more motivated to treat long-term and chronic illnesses like diabetes with more preventive measures. With the present system, doctors have no reason financially to use preventive measures or treat chronic diseases since a person is likely to change insurance providers and thus doctors. Also, uninsured Americans who have chronic illnesses would be much more likely to go to a doctor if there was a universal medical program providing health benefits for all citizens. Such a system would further benefit the nation on an economic level.
Opponents of a universal health care system assert that medical research will significantly decrease since the reduction in privatization will no longer provide the profit incentives for drug companies as before. However, medical research is already publicly funded and it would continue to be so if a universal health care plan were enacted. Drug companies would still be competing with each other to produce effective drugs and earn more government grants. In fact, many important discoveries were made in countries that have universal health care. This includes the CT scan in England and a new treatment to help cure juvenile diabetes by transplanting pancreatic cells developed in Canada.
There are dozens of other reasons that either support or undermine the idea of a universal medical coverage plan in America. My arguments are based on the belief that everyone is entitled to health care, regardless of whether they can afford it or not. For some people to be forced to stop taking their medication or refuse to go to the doctor because they cannot afford to is wrong. To give health care only to those who can pay the constantly rising costs is unacceptable, and something needs to change.
Although some would argue that nobody is automatically entitled to proper health care, I find this view fundamentally wrong from a humanistic standpoint. All Americans should have an opportunity to obtain some sort of health care, and such a concept is plausible lest our nation's health standards continue to deteriorate.
Ryan Dashek is a sophomore majoring in Biology. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
