Health care: A fundamental protection
“...we still must lay the bedrock foundations for a new national health care system for all our people. The need for action is critical for far too many of our citizens. The time for action is now,” said President Richard Nixon in a “Special Message to the Congress on Health Care” on March 2, 1972.
Providing reform to the American health care system of principals and practices has long been a part of the national agenda, from President Harry Truman’s 1949 “Fair Deal” to Nixon’s call for reform, to the overhaul presented and approved by Congress this spring; both political persuasions have recognized a need for health care reform. And both parties stand valid with this notion.
However, the success in completing and achieving such reform has led to failure during past presidencies except for the massive overhaul approved by Congress this spring under the Obama Administration. Truman’s proposal essentially fell apart with few aspects becoming law. President Jimmy Carter, President Bill Clinton, and Nixon lost in their endeavors for health care reform. With both sides, presenting legislation over the last 60 years one must ask: Why a lack of success? I would argue that achieving a health care overhaul represents an eternal linkage for a party to addressing one of the most important issues facing Americans. As stated by Ezra Klein in Taking Sides: Political Issues, “The subject’s famed complexity is a function of the forces protecting the status quo, not the issue itself.” (Klein, 182)
Disregarding the political battles, the issue must be discussed in the light of why such reform is needed. An estimated 45 million Americans have no medical coverage and an overwhelming 100 million are not adequately insured for major or long-term illness or disability. (McKenna, 180) For 45 million Americans without medical coverage and another 100 million with inadequate coverage, the “denial of care when health and life are at stake is fundamentally life-denying.” (Lakoff, 67) The opposing argument to reform would argue that a national health care system “would do a poor job, deny individuals the right to choose their own physician, and make the system much more costly.” (McKenna, 181) While this rhetoric can be broken down (as it will be later in my argument), it can be simply stated that in any case, all people would have the capacity to receive coverage rather than have no capacity at all.
Contrary to the system becoming more costly under reform, “Canada, France, Great Britain, and Germany all cover their entire populations, and they do so for far less money than we spend.” (Klein, 182) In addition, the pharmaceuticals being smuggled across the Canadian border by American seniors are not only the same company-produced drugs from the United States, they are sold for far less; Americans pay 60 percent more than Canadians do. (Klein, 183) The figures prove the suggestion that health care reform in the United States to be “more costly” is not valid. As countries with universal health care reforms spend less to cover more, and medication sells for far less, the validity to a health care reform proves more sustainable.
In regards to the “ever so long lines,” Canadian health care reform, which is not considered one of the strongest of the health care reforms, challenges this notion. A 2003 study revealed that elective surgeries and diagnostic tests took three to four weeks in relation to waiting, while the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 2001 found that 32 percent of Americans waited for over four months (not including the millions who lack coverage, and don’t seek help). In addition, no wait times in Canada existed for emergency surgeries. (Klein, 183) Also, France, a country with a highly touted health care system, its citizens visit a physician on average, six times a year; whereas, Americans make visits 2.8 times. Per capita, France spends half on health coverage compared to America. (Klein, 184). All in all, the misconception of long lines settles upon a central point: “If you can’t see a doctor in the first place, you never have to wait for treatment.” (Klein, 183)
Next, the accusation that federal health care would not serve Americans with quality professionals, medicine, innovations, and so forth, all are made with no substance. According to the Jounrnal of the American Medical Association, English people suffer from lower rates of diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, heart attack, stroke, lung disease, and cancer. (Klein, 186). The opposition presents statistics regarding infant mortality amongst Americans being higher than that of other countries, not as result of poor medical coverage, but “to such factors as race, geography, income, and education... These factors have nothing to do with quality of (or access to) health care.” (Goodman, 193). I would argue that the factors mentioned have everything to do with health care. As health care can be directly tied back to race (minorities represent 52 percent of uninsured according to Families USA), income (medical expenses and bills uncovered by insurance combat wealth), and education (families with disabilities and chronic illness face larger struggles in obtaining a focus for education).
While the opposition presents rhetoric against reform, they do little to offer propositions. “Advocates of national health insurance would do well to look at how countries like Germany, Sweden, and Australia are choosing free-market reforms to alleviate the problems of their national health systems.” (Goodman, 199). First off, the statement praises countries that were earlier criticized for their reform, and secondly, it suggests some sort of “free-market reform” without ever presenting the meaning and implications of such reform.
Even without clear definition of “free-market reform,” the problems with relying on free-market can be exposed. Nixon White House tapes cite a discussion regarding a health care company and its policies. Nixon expresses praise for less care being provided to Americans and administrators making more money. This shows “...what conservatives think one is supposed to do--use your entrepreneurial skills to make money any way that’s legal.” (Lakoff, 67)
While combating the fallacies presented by the opposition, it would be ignorant to not simply study the absolute and undeniable need for this reform. George Lakoff’s The Political Mind presents a logical argument for reform. He says, “Is police protection a commodity? Should you have to buy your police protection, say, from competing security services? Burglars? With guns? Sorry, you’re not up to date on your premiums. You’ll just have to let them rob you, or maybe kill you.” (Lakoff, 66) He continues by asking the same of fire protection, and the point is made clear. It is simply illogical to believe that police and fire do anymore of a service to the people than health care would and should. Those opposing health care reform say that they wish not to pay taxes for other Americans’ health care coverage. I must ask, do they complain about paying for putting out someone else’s fire? In addition, “the issue is not just a matter of cost, though one-third of the cost of private health care goes for profit and administration, while Medicare only spends 3 percent on administration and none on profiteering,” it is a fundamental right. (Lakoff, 67)
All in all, denying Americans, the suffering of Americans, the high medical costs charged to Americans, and the coverage not applying to the needs of Americans, demands action on the part of government. The debate of decades must end, and answers must be provided. Comprehensive and affordable coverage must serve every American. If America fails to generate wellness, then it fails to compete on the global scale, and it pulls away its own life support--its own protection.
“[I]f health care is seen as protection--on par with police and fire protection, food safety, and so on--then it becomes part of the moral mission of government...” (Lakoff, 68)
Bibliography
Ezra, Klein. Taking Sides. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011. Print.
Goodman, John C. Taking Sides. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011. Print.
Lakoff, George. The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st-century Politics with an 18th-century Brain. New York: Viking, 2008. Print.
McKenna, George, and Stanley Feingold. Taking Sides. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011. Print.
