Health care reform, yes; government run, no.
Most people agree that health care in this country is better than in other countries. And, most people agree the costs of the American system are high and rising too fast to be sustainable. I agree with most people regarding these statements; but, this pre-boomer firmly believes fixing the problem requires a bi-partisan solution, not a political one.
Currently we have a multitude of medical coverage plans. The overwhelming majority are organized. However, like it or not, we already have a layered form of universal health care; because many of those who are currently uninsured use emergency rooms as their health clinics. This is not true health care nor is it an efficient use of emergency rooms. It results in higher hospital operating costs and provides no preventive medicine. To move these people into some form of coverage and rework programs for the rest of us into universal health care is a noble ideal. The big question is can we afford it?
The administration wants to put the pedal to the metal and pass a health care program, now. The funds are not available to embark on an ambitious plan, so taxes must be raised. An easy target has been identified; it’s the so-called richest Americans. Since most of us aren’t rich, the popular opinion is to let “those people” pay higher taxes.
- Image by cliff1066 via Flickr
Besides they can afford it. The Congressional Budget Office has warned that the cost of universal health care will be much higher than anticipated. If this is the case, taxes will be passed on to more Americans, those who are not rich. If you are not directly taxed, the costs to businesses, both large and small, will be passed on to consumers.
Another way to support a universal program is to ration procedures and prescriptions as they do in Europe and Canada. For retirees, like me, this is a real concern.
Why scrap everything and start all over — especially when health care accounts for about 15 percent of the Gross National Product (GNP) — and trust the government to effectively manage it? Hospitals, physicians, pharmaceutical firms, and insurance companies have agreed to make changes. And, if the consumers are given choices within government guidelines, each of us will have an opportunity to determine with our doctors what’s best for us then shop around for the right coverage. With competition comes lower prices; however, if the private sector is put in the position of competing with the government we will end up with socialized medicine. This could mean universal, but poorer, health care.
Why don’t we approach this in a logical way, taking one step at a time with a definite end date scheduled? If each element of the health care system is on board, we can reduce health care costs and broaden coverage without breaking the backs of investors and employers, which in turn will lead to a reduction in jobs and slower economic recovery. The federal government has so much its plate: implementing the stimulus spending, running General Motors, overseeing financial institutions, and trying to develop an energy program, to name a few. Isn’t it time to take a breath before attempting to take on one more thing?
Discussion Area - Leave a Comment