Does the current health care system work in the US? In a manner of speaking - yes and no. It is true that you CAN get medical care if you really need it - doctors cannot legally turn a person away from a life-threatening situation just because they don't have insurance. I won't say this is certain, but I believe this is part of the oath that they take. It is also true that IF an individual wanted coverage (without factoring in the costs at this moment), most people could get covered by the many options available: private health care, Medicare/Medicaid, state low-cost alternatives and VA. For those that cannot get covered, it typically is linked to at least one of two factors: money and/or a pre-existing condition.

On the other hand, those two factors have made it hard for a group of individuals to get affordable health care. (Keep in mind though - "affordable" is in the eyes of the beholder) Those with pre-existing conditions often get shunned by private insurance; they may turn to public insurance, only to find out that the public insurance also has limitations on what they will pay. Access to treatment is another issue - how many doctors make house calls anymore? Finally, the known abuses of the current system overbear all involved with excessive costs - from the maximums that the insurance will pay to the malpractice insurance that doctors have to pay to be protected from sometimes "frivolous" lawsuits.

So now we talk about "nationalized" health care. What do we mean by that? There are different versions - one is simply guaranteeing coverage for all, by expanding current social programs only enough to fill the current gap; another is having the government be the sole policy maker, while allowing private insurers to effect the policy. The one that gets the most attention currently is "single-payer universal health care," because this gives people what they think they want - health coverage from cradle to grave.

I would like to kindly affirm why I am against the last option listed above. First, allow me to clarify something - such an option will STILL have limitations. Now why would that be? Simply put, no amount of revenue could cover a system that would allow its citizens to be covered for every option that they feel they are entitled to. I have two case studies to offer to support this. The first is an in-law that lives in a country with this health care. The individual was diagnosed with Stage 4 NSCLC, which gave him an estimated life expectancy of 6 months. It is true that they covered his benefits in full for some time, but something happened that is rather miraculous - it has been almost 5 years, and he's still here. However, after the first year the bills started coming out of his pocket. The cancer medicine that he needs every day? Even with this "national" health care now costs him over $250 per pill - and he takes it at least twice a day! X-rays and CAT scans? At least $300 per visit, which is about every other week.

But.. that shouldn't happen, right? Why can't the government support him more? The answer is simply this - they estimated the amount that they could support and that was it. The rest is now on him - fortunately, he was fiscally responsible and can handle things for himself AND his family.

The other case study is the one I kindly link below for your viewing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/health/03nice.html

So I pose this question: Do you want the government to tell you how much you are worth spending to save? If you support this and the cost of saving YOUR life is more than this, what will YOU do?

Capitalism has its benefits when used properly; in other cases, it can lead to abuses that hurt not just those directly involved but the general economy as well. Let’s take government entitlements, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Education assistance for consideration. How many people have seen the scooter or diabetic commercials that state something similar to “We’ll bill your insurance and Medicare/Medicaid for you?” Or how about the college ads that say you can get a degree and make more money? These are prime examples of how “for-profit” companies have abused the system.

At face value, these programs appear to be ones that truly care and support the individual. But for those working there, it is a legal grey area that is exploited – help the people that want help, but get as much out of it as possible for the company. If you doubt this, then ask yourself this question: if the company was truly interested in the benefits of the individual, why don’t they drop the cost to an affordable amount that would still allow a good amount of profit. For the sake of this argument, we will believe that 10% profit - meaning after all the costs are factored in, 10% remains – should be a more than satisfactory profit margin. Then why should the company charge more? Simply put, they do it because they can. They tell you how “it’s government money, so it’s free money…” and hope that you’ll buy it.
In other cases, capitalism has helped the government become more efficient at health care. Take for example TRICARE, which is the health care plan provided to most DoD personnel. Contrary to popular belief, there are two versions of TRICARE: TRICARE Prime, which is essentially an HMO plan that utilizes DoD medical personnel as its “in-network” medical staff.

However, another version of TRICARE is available that is more like a PPO – DoD personnel can have a certain amount withdrawn from their paycheck and can see a doctor of their choice that is accepted by the local TRICARE office. In cases where a military installation may not be nearby, a local health insurance provider may run this in place of DoD personnel. What was the benefit? Costs went down, the accessibility to care went up and the general satisfaction of active duty, reserve and retirees has greatly increased in comparison to the previous plan called CHAMPUS. So for those that champion this coverage as a true single-payer health care… you may want to take a deeper look.

http://www.tricare.mil

Leading to this point, the discussion has mainly been directed to the patient’s point of view. However, there are other people in the system that make it work, no matter who pays the bills. But what about hospital staff? And how about doctors? Do they not make a lot of money? Why should they not take a pay cut?

In reality, the doctors that are seen on TV as those who really make the money are often practicing medicine in a field that is not typically covered by insurance or charge more than an health care company will desire to pay. This often gives a misleading opinion that all doctors – even the family practitioners – are making good money. As others have mentioned in this discussion, the aforementioned salaries do not take into consideration the costs of practicing medicine. It also does not take into consideration those doctors and family practitioners that agree to lower costs in order to do what they love – help people live healthy (and hopefully happy) lives.

Those that want single payer often believe that health care should be more affordable. But the only way to reduce costs “across the board” is to limit the most that a doctor or medical professional can charge for a given service. This is what is done in several countries that have such health care; yet it is not always enough to cover the overall cost of covering its citizens. Such an example of this was the article linked here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31210877/

One thing that causes tension in our country is the infringement of government on our personal rights. Such a control of a person’s earnings, whether it is a medical professional or an executive, would push this infringement to a level unseen in this country. The strongest impacts would likely be to both medical research and professionals in specialized care, leaving a gap that would likely be filled by those who are willing to work for less. In turn, these individuals may or may not be as qualified as those they were replacing. (To say one way or another is unrealistic, it truly depends on the individual.)

Finally I would recognize the costs as a taxpayer. Whether a VAT is added, health care benefits taxed or another stream of revenue is created to the federal government, the money still has to come from somewhere – us. This would be reasonable if the average wage of those working were sufficient enough to support such an increase; however, the likely scenarios indicate that this may not guarantee sufficient revenue to cover the costs.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/13/news/economy/health_care_reform/index.htm?postversion=2009061513

In such a case, where will the money come from? Inflation will not stay stagnant or negative, which means that unless wages go up, people would have to live on less to stay the same. Regrettably, it appears that this will not improve anytime soon; in fact, solutions such as a VAT could harm this even more. However, the discussion of wages is a much larger debate in the US Economy – perhaps this could be in a later thread.

I do not claim to know all of the answers – I’m not the smartest person, I don’t always get things right nor do I believe I am infallible. I am, just like all of us, human… furthermore, I am an American. I do believe that most people are inherently good, but I’m not blind to the fact that there are those who rather cause pain and suffering for the many reasons that one may have. Any solution that tries to lay the entire burden on a single concerned party will fail, and this is why I believe we have to work together. It may sound selfish – but if we can put so much into charities around the world, why are we NOT putting that money to use here in the US? We cannot go back to a protectionist or an isolationist policy – simply put, we are burying ourselves with the costs of borrowing money from other countries and ourselves. The only way to start fixing this is to eliminate (not just break even) the national debt. Americans spent over 1 BILLION dollars to elect Mr. Obama – imagine what that could have done if focused towards all Americans.

Simply put, we have to take responsibility for ourselves. Our forefathers knew that when they challenged the British; when they declared independence; and even through the hardest times of our nation’s founding, they knew this when creating a government that is truly unique in this world. If we want to really make sure everyone is covered, then it’s up to us. Live within your means; help those truly in need when you can. Let’s show the world that we can pick ourselves up as a nation – once we get there, we can offer a great deal more to the world.

Thank you all for your time.