Public healthcare has been a hot topic in American politics as far back as the Clinton administration. There are compelling arguments on both sides of the caduceus. According to the AMA, they are in support of Health Care Reform. So what is the controversy? We at myFiveBest would like to know what your opinion is on the topic. Here are five points about universal healthcare. What is your viewpoint?
Every industrialized country, except for the United States, has a nationwide healthcare plan. There is a debate about whether their healthcare system is superior to our own system of private insurance plans, but the facts are that the United States ranks 42nd in life expectancy despite the fact we spend nearly two trillion dollars in health care – more than any nation on the planet. The reason for this is partly due to the fact that we have so many people that have no access to healthcare because they lack the insurance to pay for it – so when they get sick, they do nothing about it.
A recent study showed that 1.5 million Americans will go bankrupt this year. Some of this will be due to mismanagement of funds, but it is estimated that over 60% of will be linked to medical bills. The study further showed that the number of medically-caused bankruptcy rose 50% in a six-year period between 46 percent in 2001 to 62 percent in 2007, and most of the people who filed bankruptcy were middle-class, well-educated homeowners. (Source: The American Journal of Medicine)
The proposed universal healthcare plan is aimed at helping people who are not amongst the poorest of our poor. It is being developed to help the people who have been excluded from private insurance because of “pre-existing conditions”, have limited healthcare because their companies cannot afford better policies or have become non-competitive by high insurance policies (see GM and Chrysler), and those who have been unemployed during this economic crisis. Currently, there are more than 40 million people in the United States without health care. That’s about fourteen percent of the population. This does not include the number of people who are already on government-based healthcare through Medicaid and Medicare.
Healthcare rates in the United States are currently rising at twice the rate of the general inflation. Our aging population is using more and more of our healthcare services. In the business world, the cost of private insurance is being shifted between the employer to the consumer who are finding it more difficult to maintain health coverage. To stave off these costs, certain states are trying to offer more and more public healthcare, but without support, will not be able to maintain the rising uninsured.
In an unprecedented statement, the American Medical Association has called upon congress to take action and reform the healthcare system. They have asked the government to offer a group of plans for all people, eliminate the denials to healthcare due to “pre-existing conditions”, and include insurance for proactive preventative and wellness initiatives. They have asked for a reform to the “broken” Medicare physician payment that harms senior citizens right to care.
So, what is your opinion on this? Yes, there were surely be an added cost to universal healthcare. The government is proposing to place “sin taxes” on things that are already bad for us: Fast food, sugary soft drinks, alcohol, and cigarettes. These items are contributing to our healthcare problem. There are plenty of “what if’s” out there, but what is the solution?
Related posts:
#1 by Robert Armstrong on July 24th, 2009
with socialistic version of public healthcare comes waiting lists for “non-lifethreatening conditions”. If you need a knee replacement because you can barely walk you will be put on a waiting list which could be years long. Our shop owner was born and raised in Germany which has this type of healthcare. His friend needs a hip replacement. He is not a “priority” so he is on morphine to deal with his pain while he waits for his surgery which is estimated to be in two years! Morphine is an addicting narcotic. Does this mean he will be in drug rehab after his surgery is finally done? Also countries with this type of healthcare pay a huge amount of taxes. To say that sin taxes will pay for this is just plain wrong. Sin taxes have been justified in many ways, but mostly just when the government needs money. Can you say for sure that our bureacratic government will put that money exactly where it is supposed to go. Maybe after they VOTE THEMSELVES a 10% pay raise! You will be paying for that every time you buy something the gov’t deams unhealthy which may sound cut and dry today but that list will definetly grow. I personally am in favor of what John McCain called a competative market. A tax allowance per family so that you may hunt for a good deal for insurance on your own. The theory is this will drive prices down to draw clientell. You will also be saving whatever money comes out of your paycheck every week to cover your end of a Cobra payment. With that, businesses that are paying upwards of $400 to $550 per month of that payment will be able to reinvest that back into their companies to become more competative in this global economy. This my opinion. Then again, you know what they say about opinions…
#2 by Bob Thomas on July 24th, 2009
No one is saying that everyone HAS to be on the government healthcare plan. The option is there if you can’t afford health insurance, your job isn’t covering it or you choose to be on this system. There are still costs involved, it just makes healthcare available for everyone. This should also force the private insurance companies ot lighten up or lose business. It becomes a “competitive market.” I am not saying that it is perfect and I respect duqofurl2 and Mr. Armstronsg opinion, but if someone came to your door bleeding, would you just let them die in your front yard or would you try and help them? Why can’t we do that for a whole nation? Just my couple of pennies…
#3 by Justin Keeley on July 24th, 2009
Face it! Obama did nothing to help GM or Crysler and he’s not going to help with healthcare, either. He’s putting the country in debt and runing it for our children.
#4 by Waggs2999 on July 25th, 2009
Tax & Spend, let’s just tax & punish anyone with even a small amount of success so we can give to the poor and lazy. The is a country of opportunity, not guarantees or entitlement.
When only some people pay in, and everyone receives a portion, that’s Socialism.
I understand there are hardship cases where some people are victims of society, and I have no problem helping them. But the lazy Welfare recipients that spend their lives on Welfare and refuse to contribute to society (anything other than numerous kids with no parenting) are so taxing on our economy, and now we have to increase the taxes on the working in order to give even more to these people?!?
Thanks Obama, great job!
#5 by Jimm on July 25th, 2009
The problem with that argument is that the poor and “lazy” aren’t the ones going to benefit from this. They already have something to cover their healthcare – it’s called Medicaid and it has been around since 1965. It is a socialist program, just as Medicare is a socialist program. Are the people on Medicare non-contributing members of society because they are old?
I think people think that this is a catch-all health insurance for anyone who doesn’t want to work or can’t work. It isn’t that way and it isn’t proposed that way. It is to stop private insurance companies from saying, “you’ve had diabetes or high blood pressure, we won’t cover you -it is a pre-existing condition.”
#6 by Waggs2999 on July 26th, 2009
Let me first re-phrase the “poor & lazy.” I should have said the lazy Welfare & Medicaid recipients who refuse to work and contribute to society. There are a lot of hard working people out there that have fallen on hard times, that can be classified as poor. I regret phrasing that as I did.
The elderly and disabled have every right to Medicare assuming they paid in during their working years. Assuming they have paid into a system that pays them back once they reach a certain age.
The problem is the people that do nothing to contribute to “the system” that continues to spend money on them. And, yes they do benefit from this, because so much money is already spent on them.
Do you realize, Welfare does not require the recipient to submit to a drug test? But, my line of work requires me to submit to periodic testing. Think about that. IMHO, the recipients should have to submit to periodic drug tests in order to receive their check. Yes it’s an added expense to the government, but it wouldn’t take long to recover that loss.
It is unfair to continue increasing taxes for people who earn over 280k per year. These are the people that spend the most money, hire employees and sub-contractors. They are responsible for most jobs. If they pull back due to the tax increases, it will further impact the economy. Is it fair that they should pay 60% of their income to the government for all the BS special interest programs?? Where does it end, 75%? 80%? 300k per year is not a lot of money in certain areas of this country.
#7 by Malcolm D. on July 26th, 2009
We should get rid of all of these programs! Cut it all out!!! Why should we have to pay for anyone else’s problem? If we had the taxes back, then maybe we could decide on who to help. If we don’t have the money, then it just hurts us when they ask for more. I’d rather decide where my money is going to go to.
#8 by Dr in Cleveland on August 2nd, 2009
Our healthcare system is broken. Everyone should have access to preventative medicine. Too often people come in for their $50,000-100,000 bypass surgery that the hospital absorbs and defrays the cost of by making everyone else and their insurance pay for, when $500-$1000 of doctor visits and medication would have prevented or ameliorated the heart disease. Something needs to change.