Why We Should Care

OH MY GOD! That mummy man is trying to get free health care! Cast him aside!

OH MY GOD! That mummy man is trying to get free health care! Cast him aside!

Illustration by jordon batura

Last winter, my dad was diagnosed with a specific, difficult-to-operate-on form of nerve cancer in his arm that could have led to the loss of his limb if it had been malignant. Thankfully, he had some of the best doctors in Houston, who knew exactly which tests and operations they should perform in order to optimize their chances of success. They acted with speed and precision and were able to remove the cancerous mass from my dad’s arm entirely, without causing it to spread anywhere else, as far as we know.

The discussion about health care reform over the last few weeks has made me realize how lucky we were: not lucky because we have the best health care system in the world — we don’t; and not lucky because the free-market system we do have led to the most efficient and effective regime to provide health care — it hasn’t; we were extremely lucky because the health insurance my dad’s employer provided him (which they changed the month after his operations because of the exorbitant costs it imposed on their company) supplied the hospital and the doctors with the financial lubricant necessary to make their medical machine run.

America is in dire need of health care reform and has been for several decades. The system we currently have of for-profit insurance firms that provide private and employer-based health care is not only illogical and morally reprehensible but also an unsustainable venture that will bankrupt America and leave those not lucky enough to be able to afford dozens of thousands of dollars in insurance premiums crowding emergency rooms across the country.

The reforms that have been making their way through Congress and garnering so much national attention lately provide a real opportunity for Americans to take the control of their health care out of the hands of uncaring, profit-driven insurance companies.

One of the largest attacks against government-run health care has been the assertion that the government will operate panels designed to prevent the elderly or direly infirm from receiving treatment so as to avoid burdening a national health system with unjustifiable costs.

Besides distracting from more legitimate concerns over health care, that fraudulent argument obscures the public view of a very sobering and far more frightening fact: private insurers actually practice a similar form of health care discrimination. That is the biggest human issue with health care; largely at their discretion, many insurance providers can and will either drop a client or refuse to pay for a life-saving operation because of a pre-existing condition.

Moreover, many insurers won’t even pick up individuals who have proven to need extensive or costly health care, further denying those individuals any real chance at a healthy life. Taking those “money-saving” tactics out of the hands of insurance companies is at the heart of current health care reform, not only because they make the most affected Americans worse off but also because they actually end up costing the insured more.

It seems that opponents of health care reform are very interested in money. Where will the money for this program come from? How much will be cut from Medicare and Medicaid? How much will it cost the average American?

Time and again Obama and Congress Democrats answer that, for most Americans, taxes will not be increased and that the cost of health care will decline even while the 1/6th of America that is uninsured gets coverage. But what is not asked or heard as often is how much our current health care system will continue to weigh ever more heavily on American pocketbooks.

Aside from the increase in cost that health care would naturally face, the discriminatory practices employed by insurers exacerbate this issue greatly. America has a large uninsured population, recently determined to be at least 52 million people. One of the only options available for those people to receive health care is the emergency room. That leaves those individuals with large medical costs that they often cannot afford, which in turn leaves hospitals with large bills that they cannot pay.

The solution? Simple really: Increase the costs that the insured have to pay in order to compensate. That rise in the cost of health insurance makes it so that fewer people and companies can afford to have health insurance, which creates an even larger pool of uninsured and more unpaid emergency-room costs. Combine that with all the jobs and insurance policies lost over the past year, and it’s easy to see the positive feedback loop the insurance companies’ profit-seeking creates.

I shared my personal anecdote because I wanted to show what can happen when American health care actually works for Americans. But that isn’t the case for all Americans, and if the health care industry continues its devastating, reckless profiteering, then it won’t even continue to be the case for most Americans.

We need health care reform. We need a strong public option with strong regulation of the private sector to keep private insurers in check — not because it’s the right thing to do but because, without it, we just won’t be able to afford to be healthy.

This article appears on page 12 in Vol. 6, Issue 1 -- September 2009

Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus

Legacy Comments

These comments were imported from our old comments system
Do some research posted on 2009-09-03

You realize that "strong" regulation is what collapsed the housing market right? Why not just allow insurers to sell across state lines, allowing them to create larger pools to lower costs? This is essentially what the public option will be built upon. Also, how can you believe that it will not cost out the wazoo? Medicare is broke, Medicaid is broke, Social Security is broke...I'm starting to see a trend here. I know how to fix it!!! Start another program that has no feasible way to stay within its cost constraints. BRILLIANT!!

Tyler Ratliff posted on 2009-09-03

There's a reason that Medicare and Medicaid are two of the most expensive line items in the federal budget, and that's run away healthcare costs, due to the system we currently have. By allowing a single payer option, the government will be more able to streamline the costs of healthcare by reducing wasteful spending, lowering the costs and, yes, keeping it within a reasonable budget. Even if the program does end up costing the federal government more than is currently proposed, the trend in rising healthcare costs will make staying insured unaffordable to all but the most well-off Americans soon, and that's something that I don't think we can afford.

Social security is a completely different matter that should not be lumped in with the medical parts of our welfare state. That's an unfair argument to make and confuses the issue more than anything.

As for "'strong' regulation . . . [collapsing] the housing market," I'm not quite sure what you're referring to here. Was it the ability of banks to give out subprime mortgages without oversight? Or, possibly their ability to package mortgages that had no chance of being paid off into securities without oversight that you mean? Either way, there was a huge lack of regulation and oversight there, much thanks to the fiscal conservatives protecting profit seekers in their reckless pursuit of getting every last dollar.

Tyler Ratliff posted on 2009-09-03

Also, if you do happen to have your own research to provide from a reputable source, please link it. I am more than willing to admit that I don't know everything there is to know about healthcare and would like to see some hard numbers that could make me rethink the cost/benefit of continuing a private healthcare system over implementing a universal social one. If it has a projection of what the average American can expect to pay under our current system, that would be an even better way for me to compare. Thanks!

Maruchan posted on 2009-09-08

This artwork is ridiculous. Seriously. You have all these hip, unhappy young people glaring angrily at the fucking monopoly guy as he enters a hospital.

It's possible, you know, that instead of a top-hat wearing, monocled caricature of wealth, the guy with good health insurance is someone who worked hard all their life, and made the right choices in order to provide for himself and his family.

To turn this into a "rich v poor" argument where the rich are presented as 19th century railroad tycoons is doing a real disservice to the argument.