A Vote for Universal Care

Adam Silva is a 21-year-old University of North Texas student majoring in Political Science and International Studies. He blogs at Three Wise Men.

Most of us have at one time or another been without health insurance, many of you probably do not have health insurance or otherwise have problems with the health insurance you do have. I have seen the consequences of lack of health care in just the last year.

My parents being unemployed at the time and my job offering no such benefit, I found myself extremely ill for several weeks. I put off seeking treatment but eventually had to go to the Emergency Room. Though I really only needed a simply prescription for antibiotics, the affair has ended up costing me $450 and $50 for the prescription, and though I have paid it, has cost me some unfortunate affairs with credit agencies.

Just a few weeks ago I was sick again with the same symptoms, but as I am now covered because my dad is employed and I am enrolled full-time at a university, the trip to the doctor and subsequent prescription cost me no more than $25, far less than before. Since I did not feel the need to wait on seeking treatment this time around, I got better after just a few days.

It is my feeling that too many times does the average American find themselves in a similar situation under our current private health care system. In fact, 46 million are insured and millions more underinsured and even those who have health insurance encounter many problems.

What is my solution?

I believe the U.S. should adopt universal health care because it offers the same benefits as our current system but would be available to all at all times. To help you understand how I came to this conclusion, I will discuss the facts and figures regarding health insurance in American, present studies on health care, and address how you can make a difference in this debate.

As I said, many Americas are currently uninsured yet there is little push for major reform.

One out of every six Americans don’t have access to healthcare. In Texas, it’s one out of every four, including 25 percent of children. More than 40 percent of Americans making between $20,000 and $40,000 a year went without insurance for at least part of the year last year.

But beyond the millions without health insurance, many Americans that do find themselves unsatisfied with the integrity and stability of the health coverage they have. Forty percent of bankruptcies occur because of catastrophic health care costs. Also, worker mobility has increased tremendously over the last few decades, rendering it impossible for anyone to take health care benefits from job to job. Worse still, a recent study has shown health insurance companies to hold a monopoly on the health care industry.

Now that we’ve discussed the problems, let me share what I see as the best solution.

The United States is the only industrialized nation in the world without a universal health care (UHC) system. Even Costa Rica has one! Much of the resistance can be attributed to the perpetuation by conservatives of many myths about UHC that have prevailed so much it has scared many lawmakers who would naturally by sympathetic to the cause, especially Democrats, away from the idea. However, most of these myths are unfounded and I will detail each one here.

The most common misperception is that universal health care equals "socialized medicine,” which would mean hospitals and doctors becoming employees of the state. But UHC only provides funding for people's health care, not the health care itself, debunking the arguments that UHC would eliminate private competition and thus stifle research and development.

Basically, all UHC would be is “Medicare for all.”

Another myth about UHC is that is would be too expensive. However, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that UHC would actually save up to $14 billion annually in health care costs. Sure, we'd have to raise taxes to pay for it, but that would just replace the health care premiums we already pay, so there'd be no difference - and as I said, it would actually be cheaper. I don't know about you, but if I’m given the choice between paying a tax and something called a premium, my only question is going to be: which costs less?

UHC would actually improve on the system in several other, unexpected ways.

Wouldn’t it require a huge, inefficient bureaucracy, conservatives say? Anyone who has ever dealt with a health care provider (my mother has worked for one for 20-odd years) knows the current system is a huge, inefficient bureaucracy now! However, with UHC, much of the unnecessary overhead and micromanaging that's in the private system would be eliminated. For example, the bureaucracy and paperwork involved in determining patient eligibility would be completely unnecessary if everyone were eligible and covered. Insurance companies spend an estimated 25 cents of every dollar on administration. In fact, Canada, which already has a comprehensive UHC in place and still manages to pay 70 percent less per citizen on health care, spends about the equivalent of about 12 cents of every dollar on administration.

Another criticism is that it would restrict patient choice. Aside from the fact that this probably doesn't resonate with the 46 million who are uninsured, and the millions more who are under-insured, UHC would enable the same choice or more in selecting a physician than the current system under which HMOs and insurance companies restrict patients to a strict list of complying physicians. As for the common complaint of long wait lines - this is true. However, the wait would be no longer than it is already! It's almost as if these critics have never gotten ill and had to deal with all this before.

A final added economic bonus of UHC would be that it would free private businesses from having to worry about health care benefits for their employers, increasing their ability to compete with foreign businesses which don't have to and/or aren't required to. It's always been foolish to rely on a health care system built on employment, especially since worker mobility has increased as mentioned earlier.

In conclusion, lack of health coverage is a severe crisis for many, if not most, Americans today and we must undertake bold reform ideas to end it.

Only Congress has the power to enact UHC and I encourage you all to write to your senators and representatives and tell them you support the idea and support candidates in future elections that support the idea (or likewise, encourage them to do so).

Tell them this idea is not outside the mainstream. According to a nationwide ABC-Washington Post poll in 2003, Americans by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, 62 to 32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance programs "run by the government and financed with taxpayers" over the current healthcare system. The poll showed four in five Americans said it is more important to provide universal health care, even if it meant raising taxes, than to hold down taxes and leave some citizens with no coverage.

Finally, rather than tolerating a system where the goal is to make as much money as possible, leaving millions without such an essential need as health care, America should move to one which would keep or improve on all the benefits of the old private system, but in which they would be available to every one and not just those who can afford them.

Wouldn’t that be worth it?