This debate has been going on for the last century. In theory, how could anyone be opposed to everyone having health insurance? And, in theory, if everyone was in the insurance risk pool this would be the best way to spread health care costs equally. By the same token, how could anyone be opposed to everyone having good and ample food & water, and everyone needs housing, and everyone needs utilities for their housing, and everyone needs transportation and there is a long list of other needs that we all have.
The real question is can a society afford universal health insurance and thus universal health care in the sense that most Americans have become accustomed to getting it? When you start looking at the economics of health care this becomes much more problematic. Health care is different from most services we consume in that it creates its own growing demand. Who doesn't want to live longer, and live healthier during that longer life? And, as you have probably noticed, we have a continually growing list of parts we can replace, once deadly illnesses we can now manage or cure, and treatments that just improve your "quality of life". All this comes with a price tag and the price just keeps going up. I was born in 1957 for a cost of $400, my son was born in 1987 for a cost of $4000, and today a normal childbirth is easily $8000+. As best as I can tell, babies are born the same way today as they were in 1957 but the cost has far outpaced general inflation levels in the economy as a whole over that time period.
The painful reality is that providing universal healthcare in a modern society (e,g, - North America, Europe) has not been accomplished without rationing of healthcare services (however it might be disguised). For instance, we have more MRI scanners in Memphis, TN than in all of Canada (a nation often cited as an example of where universal health insurance is a success). Tests that get ordered and conducted on the same day here can have waiting times of months up there.
There really is no definitive answer to your question. But it does highlight the gap between theory and reality when trying to address providing health insurance to a population.
Business Development Officer, T.D. McNeil Insurance Services, Fresno, California
Medical care has a price. In the open market it is fixed by consumers who want a service and medical personnel who can deliver the service. The problem occurs when someone needs the treatment but cannot or will not pay the price for the service. I say, “Will not” because every decision about spending is discretionary.
Should society as a whole bear the responsibility for the medical care for every resident? Should the nature of that care be regulated? Should the source of funding be general? Those are the most pressing questions when considering a universal health care system.
Ultimately in a universal health care system there is a specified list of services and a funding mechanism that is not based upon need for medical services. You may need a procedure that isn’t covered in the program. At the same time you might consider another procedure immoral or frivolous. Who is going to decide? The idea of universal health care sounds very good until you understand that some medical services will probably not be covered. In the USSR dental hygiene consisted of inserting a fluorescent tube into the patient’s mouth and surgery was routinely conducted in a super-cold environment because anesthesia was not readily available. In that case, most American’s would consider the health care to be inadequate. However, it was available to all and at little or no direct cost to the consumer.
Under most regimes universal health care becomes rationed health care. The best example is the army under war time conditions. It is called “triage” but it means that you treat those with the greatest likelihood of recovery before treating soldiers with graver injuries. While it might be the best utilization of manpower, the soldier with his leg blown off, might not like the wait and a narcotic shot is not going to make his family happy.
The issue of who is going to pay for the universal health care system is the most sensitive. No one wants to see others in need. By the same token no one wants to pay the high bill for medical treatment. If the universal care is funded by general funds from taxes it will always be a political football. If it is paid by premiums paid by individuals there will always be a need to assist those unable to pay the premium.
The problem really boils down to our expectations of treatment level, the availability and cost of that treatment and who is going to pay the price. Yes, it sounds like a great idea but it has many difficulties and when it is expected then the society will start to question the need for universal flat screen TVs, micro-wave ovens and wall-to-wall carpets. There really isn’t an end unless you look at the Soviet Union and see how it ended.
Agent Owner, Gilmore Insurance Services, Marysville, Washington State
Is universal health insurance a good idea? Well yes and no. In some countries it works very well, others not so much. Some of this could be that usually in countries that are universal health countries some access to health care services are limited, some drugs aren't available because of profit margin limits. I think the happiness depends on the culture of the population. The hard thing I see for America adopting Universal Healthcare would be the idea of limited or delayed services as we as a culture, only wait for cell phones and movie premieres. Certainly there is more to it, but that is for another day as the answer isn't easy and would take pages of text to cover.
.JPG){kind=avatar}
The real question is can a society afford universal health insurance and thus universal health care in the sense that most Americans have become accustomed to getting it? When you start looking at the economics of health care this becomes much more problematic. Health care is different from most services we consume in that it creates its own growing demand. Who doesn't want to live longer, and live healthier during that longer life? And, as you have probably noticed, we have a continually growing list of parts we can replace, once deadly illnesses we can now manage or cure, and treatments that just improve your "quality of life". All this comes with a price tag and the price just keeps going up. I was born in 1957 for a cost of $400, my son was born in 1987 for a cost of $4000, and today a normal childbirth is easily $8000+. As best as I can tell, babies are born the same way today as they were in 1957 but the cost has far outpaced general inflation levels in the economy as a whole over that time period.
The painful reality is that providing universal healthcare in a modern society (e,g, - North America, Europe) has not been accomplished without rationing of healthcare services (however it might be disguised). For instance, we have more MRI scanners in Memphis, TN than in all of Canada (a nation often cited as an example of where universal health insurance is a success). Tests that get ordered and conducted on the same day here can have waiting times of months up there.
There really is no definitive answer to your question. But it does highlight the gap between theory and reality when trying to address providing health insurance to a population.
Should society as a whole bear the responsibility for the medical care for every resident? Should the nature of that care be regulated? Should the source of funding be general? Those are the most pressing questions when considering a universal health care system.
Ultimately in a universal health care system there is a specified list of services and a funding mechanism that is not based upon need for medical services. You may need a procedure that isn’t covered in the program. At the same time you might consider another procedure immoral or frivolous. Who is going to decide? The idea of universal health care sounds very good until you understand that some medical services will probably not be covered. In the USSR dental hygiene consisted of inserting a fluorescent tube into the patient’s mouth and surgery was routinely conducted in a super-cold environment because anesthesia was not readily available. In that case, most American’s would consider the health care to be inadequate. However, it was available to all and at little or no direct cost to the consumer.
Under most regimes universal health care becomes rationed health care. The best example is the army under war time conditions. It is called “triage” but it means that you treat those with the greatest likelihood of recovery before treating soldiers with graver injuries. While it might be the best utilization of manpower, the soldier with his leg blown off, might not like the wait and a narcotic shot is not going to make his family happy.
The issue of who is going to pay for the universal health care system is the most sensitive. No one wants to see others in need. By the same token no one wants to pay the high bill for medical treatment. If the universal care is funded by general funds from taxes it will always be a political football. If it is paid by premiums paid by individuals there will always be a need to assist those unable to pay the premium.
The problem really boils down to our expectations of treatment level, the availability and cost of that treatment and who is going to pay the price. Yes, it sounds like a great idea but it has many difficulties and when it is expected then the society will start to question the need for universal flat screen TVs, micro-wave ovens and wall-to-wall carpets. There really isn’t an end unless you look at the Soviet Union and see how it ended.