Universal Health Care is the Only Right Action

10 months ago

There are many reasons why adopting universal health care in the United States is the right thing to do. First, it would save money. Yes, you read that right - SAVE money. At first glance it would appear that providing better health care to more citizens would add substantial cost. There are more than 40 million Americans without health insurance. If no other changes were made in our health care system, providing basic health care to those 40 million Americans would increase the $1.9 trillion per year cost of the American health care system by an estimated $77 billion - about a 4% increase. But that 4% increase would only be present if we added yet another level of complexity to our bloated private payer system, and that would be foolish.

How can providing health care for the 16% of Americans who don't have insurance add only 4% to our nation's health care bill? The only health care now available to those without insurance is emergency rooms - the most expensive and least efficient mechanism for handling medical care. Routine care, preventative treatment and medication are far lower cost as well as being more humane than waiting until crisis drives sick people to the emergency room. In addition, today, many people enter our medicare system at 65 with conditions that could and should have been addressed years earlier under a more reasonable system. It costs our nation fully as much to perform a hip transplant at age 65 as it would have cost to save the individual years of suffering by performing the procedure earlier.

The statistics, but not the conclusion, that I present here are based on the 94 page document Accounting for the cost of health care in the United States by the prestigious McKinsey Global Institute. It's available free, and if you have the time, I highly recommend reading the whole report. It's packed with facts, and stops short of making recommendations.

Around the world, the per capita cost of health care is generally proportional to national income levels. The United States is the only developed country whose health care costs are dramatically higher than would be expected from our income levels. Our costs are $480 billion per year (33%) higher than would be expected from our income levels. Do we receive better health care for those dollars? Objectively, no. $480 billion is a huge amount of money. It's $1600 per year for every man, woman, and child. It's more than six times the additional cost of providing ongoing health care to those now without medical insurance. So where does that $480 billion go?

Are Americans sicker than others? The bottom line is, no. We get a few conditions more often, many others less often, and we are on average younger than the citizens of other highly developed countries, which would be expected to lower our health care cost substantially. How about the costs of medical malpractice insurance and litigation? Our country's excess in damage awards costs us $20 billion per year. While this is certainly an area for correction, it only represents 4% of the overspending.

$66 billion of the overage is due to the cost of drugs, even though we use 20% less prescription drugs than other developed nations. Our cost for a prescription is 70% higher than the same drug in other countries. Another $18 billion of overage is attributable to non-drug supplies. Devices such as pacemakers and knee implants are over 50% more expensive than the same devices sold in other countries. There is a remarkable correlation between the highest profit procedures and those which are performed much more frequently in the United States than in other countries. Unnecessary testing, in part driven by fear of malpractice lawsuits, adds billions more to our costs. Inefficient administration, such as assigning menial tasks to skilled nurses, adds additional billions.

The $412 annual per capita that the United States spends on the administration of it's health care system is six times more than it is projected to be under a public system - that's a savings of almost $100 billion per year. A full $75 billion per year of that currently goes directly to the corporate profits and additional costs imposed by the private payer system. That alone is equivalent to the incremental cost of providing health care to our 40 million uninsured Americans. Moreover, a universal system would provide a platform for reducing the costs of drugs, devices, and other costs that have become run-away under our current system.

Should the expected cost savings be the primary reason for adopting universal health care? How about improving the nation's productivity because we'll be healthier? Should our primary argument be that a universal health care system is even more crucial to our nation's future than a universal education system? For me, the primary argument for universal health care in the United States is that it is the only morally acceptable response to the suffering caused by illness. For me, it's a bonus that universal health care will reduce costs, but I would vote to provide medical care to all our citizens, regardless of the cost.

Serious illness is always a personal catastrophy. Over 50% of personal bankruptcies are the result of medical costs, and untold lives and families are destroyed by our nation's callous disregard of its citizens. Our current system serves the rich, the very poor, those over 65, and those healthy enough and fortunate enough to work for employers who provide private health insurance. Everyone else is out of luck.

Once one is thrown out of the current system, it is impossible to get back in. Once you get sick, you are labeled as having a "preexisting condition," and cannot get private health insurance at any price. Further, even if you are healthy enough to work, you are unlikely to find an employer who will hire you, as it drives up the company's insurance rates to employ those with a "preexisting condition." But of course it will never say that in the rejection letter.

I have several friends whose lives have been devastated by this merciless cycle - catastrophic illness, compounded by huge medical expenses, and then topped by a lifelong ineligibility for health insurance. Even as I give what I can to help close friends through their cycle of devastation, I visualize the faces of those who are even less fortunate.

The lack of universal health care in the United States is nothing less than a blot on the morality of our great nation that must be addressed NOW.

Visit The Complete Cynic's Guide to Politics for more ultra-progressive views on government and life.
Brighten your mornings with my Daily Inspiration - Daily Quote blog.

Today, I dance lightly with life
- jonathan lockwood huie

Random Post

An interesting article on health care in America

Another Shot at Health Care “Reform” – Part 2 of 2

The Healing of America: Book Review

From Cadillacs to Yugos: The story of Obama's He...

Health care for everyone; or else.

...
Comments (14)

Respond

By Jordan7 months ago

Another hole in the theory that ordering people to get insurance prevents them from using or abusing the E.R.
Nor is lack of insurance a predictor that people will rush to the E.R. I have been without insurance most of the past 15 years and never once have used the E.R.

ER visits, costs in Mass. Climb
The Boston Globe
By Liz Kowalczyk
April 24, 2009

"Just because you have insurance doesn't mean there's a [primary care] physician who can see you," said Dr. Sandra Schneider, vice president of the American College of Emergency Physicians, which, like other national groups, is closely watching the Massachusetts experiment. "I am not surprised at all that visits went up."

http://www.biggovhealth.org/in-the-news/er-visits-costs-in-mass-climb/

Last post by Jordan: Losing our rights...

Respond

By Jonathan7 months ago

I ask those who who oppose public health care, do you truly feel no obligation whatsoever to provide medical care for those who have "preexisting conditions" and cannot obtain private medical insurance? The idea, "I'm healthy, why should I pay for anyone else's medical care," doesn't mesh with my sense of morality.

Same with public education... Sure it needs improvement. Please get elected to your local school board. But do you really suggest that we should stop providing education for each and every American child?

Last post by Jonathan: Alas for those that never sing, But die with all their music in them! Oliver Wendell Holmes

Show replies (1) to this comment

Respond

By Jordan8 months ago

Universal Health care is a liberal's dream.
As I have explained somewhere else http://www.bloggersbase.com/articles/world-affairs/politics-and-opinions/obama-health-care-plan-a-new-tax-avalanche-onto-the-wealthy-could-doom-any-jobs-recovery/ and with good reasons I totally oppose it, no matter it WHAT you call it *Universal HC, Single Payer, or the latest, "public option).

There is ZERO support for the claim that it "saves money." Such a program as Canada, Europe and now, the "great" state of Taxachusetts have would bankrupt the country and our pockets until kingdom comes.
I suppose, when they think of "cutting costs" the politicians omit that it would mean THEY decide who DESERVES to be treated and who they will let slide into a crack. You know, if you are [deemed] too old, then spending money for tests and treatments would be a waste. What a creepy feeling that is!

BTW, if Universal H.C. were such a wonderful thing, WHY aren't Congress and the President going to adopt it for themselves? Why us and not them!?

Their actions speak louder than their words...and they tell fewer lies.

Last post by Jordan: Losing our rights...

Respond

By kaytiiangel10 months ago

My husband owns his own business and runs it alone. It's much cheaper for us to be "self pay" then to pay outrageous amounts for health insurance. When we had our 4th child, we were shocked when the hospital told us if we paid the whole bill the day I checked out, they'd knock off 50%. This happened with our last baby as well. Our pediatrician and family doctors both give us a discount and offer us Rx samples when they have them available. Publix supermarket has a long list of free Rx which we check before our doctor writes a Rx. We are looking into catastrophic insurance, though. For now, it saves a hundreds of dollars a year to pay out of pocket. We are fortunate to be a healthy family.

Last post by kaytiiangel: I CAN do anything for 21 days, it's just hard

Show replies (1) to this comment

Respond

By Anonymous10 months ago

Here's what Charles Krauthammer, someone who's both a physician and infinitely smarter than you, has to say.

My own preference is for a highly competitive, privatized health insurance s...

Respond

By Jonathan10 months ago

The controversy over providing essential services for all Americans is not a new one. Public education did not become universal in all states until 1918. For the first 150 years, some states provided universal education, while others did not, or limited public education to only some citizens.

Last post by Jonathan: Alas for those that never sing, But die with all their music in them! Oliver Wendell Holmes

Show replies (2) to this comment