myspace counters
College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students

The Towerlight

A system for the people, not for profit

By Caroline Vassighi

Progressive Democrats of Towson

Print this article

Published: Thursday, October 22, 2009

Updated: Thursday, October 22, 2009

Folks, it’s cheaper to die than go to a hospital in this country.

Despite health care being a basic human right, it is estimated that 47 million people are uninsured and 25 million people are underinsured. Approximately 18,000 Americans die each year because of lack of coverage. The only solution to curbing these extremely troubling figures is to push through a public option for healthcare.

Americans already pay the most out of any industrialized nation for our privatized health care.  However, paying a higher price does not equate to getting better care. Despite our outrageous spending on regular appointments and the hidden costs of hospital and E.R visits, our average life expectancy is lower than those from industrialized nations with a public option for health care.

While discussing the costs of health care and health insurance, it is easy to forget that insurance companies are primarily concerned with making a profit. This of course means that insurance companies are charging the people appalling amounts for mediocre coverage. A public option would create competition for these insurance companies and force them to competitively price health insurance. This competition would drive prices down so that essentially, people would be able to afford health insurance and those who couldn’t could enroll in a public option provided by the government.

It is unethical to discuss health care in strictly monetary terms.  Health care is a human right that has been distorted for far too long by insurance companies putting dollar prices on human lives. We’re talking about people, here. A public option for health care would be beneficial to this country in a similar way that public education is. Most folks choose to send their kids to public school. For those who cannot send their kids to a pricey private institution, there is a public option for education so that we live in a society of mostly literate people. Just as it is in our best interest to be an educated country, it is in our best interest to be a healthy country. A public option would give the millions of Americans who are uninsured or underinsured an opportunity to access their right to healthcare.

The United States is overdue in recognizing healthcare as a human right. I urge you to pressure your Congressmen and women into pushing through a public option. Write them, call them---demand that they consider people over profit and provide a public option.

 

Comments

4 comments
John Locke
Fri Oct 23 2009 11:26
@Your name: Health and life may not be the same thing but they are inextricably tied together. Your health can directly influence and intersect with numerous other aspects of your life. It is not so cut and dry. The drowning man analogy is a weak and false analogy. That’s assuming that an average person going by is ignoring his right to life by not saving him. By going into the water you endanger yourself; doctors do not endanger themselves with procedures and surgeries. Are you a trained lifeguard able and adept at pulling the man out of the water? Doctors are trained to help improve health and save lives, not some average guy walking by. Regardless, if you have the ability to help someone without unduly endangering yourself, you should.

We are all paying for each others health care so we can all avoid debt. It only takes one procedure to have economic ramifications for the rest of your life. No, a good credit score is not a “right,” as you so sarcastically state, but economic trouble can parlay into a slew of whole other problems. And this is all from someone who may have been insured but denied on ridiculous claims. For example, women after being raped may have to take Anti-AIDs medication to try and prevent AIDs. By merely taking that medication many insurances will deny you coverage on basis of a pre-existing condition for a number of years, regardless of whether you actually contracted AIDs. That means you risk AIDs to keep insurance or you take the medicine and then have to pay out of pocket for a number of years. Some people on the basis of unrelated conditions go in for say appendicitis and are denied then left with a bill $40,000. They haven’t done anything wrong and are now footing something that would tax most middle class incomes heavily. And if there were affordable and accessible health care you wouldn’t see people opting out.

On your third point, no we can’t. Medicaid plays to a very small base and does not even come close to solving all the problems that exist within the current structure of health care. The notion of poverty in this country is riddled with misinformation and faulty negative stigmas. Poverty isn’t just a lack of money, they lack the same resources, and time many middle class citizens do. It is a very harsh cycle that is hard to get out of. Someone may well make enough money to not qualify for Medicaid, but still be too poor to afford insurance. It is not so simple as poor=Medicaid, problem solved.

I’m glad you agree we need health care reform. As to your final point, you misconstrue a lot. That number of 9,000 may well be very higher; it depends on how the study is conducted. Remember too, that that number is only regards to mortality, and not simply improving quality of life, or helping with ongoing, but nonlethal diseases. All the money would not just be for those 9,000, it would be for every one under the new plan. You say people do put a price on life, yes they do-but no one should. People avoid the doctor because of fear. Fear of disease, fear of pain, fear of the costs, fear of how all that will weigh and hurt their families, which is all based in a fear of death. They do care, and they do want to go, but it’s a matter of time, access, and affordability.

Your name
Fri Oct 23 2009 03:47
Firstly, health and life are not the same thing. Even if they were, are you violating a drowning man's right to life by not jumping into the water to save him?
Secondly, are we really required to pay for someone's healthcare just so that they don't go into debt? If this were the case then it must be to fulfill the right to a good credit score that I keep hearing so much about. The cost will cause some people to opt out; but if healthcare is so important then why would they? Could it be that the cost isn't worth it to some people?
Thirdly, I'm fairly certain we can agree that Medicaid is the healthcare equivalent of food stamps.
Fourthly, I would agree that we need healthcare reform in this country. We need to promote competition between insurance companies by applying anti-trust laws to them (which will drive down costs), we need to regulate insurance policies so that people who are covered do not have to empty their life savings because there is a question of which insurance company should pay what, and finally there needs to be some way of insuring that people actually know what they are covered for.
Finally, we are going to spend how many billions of dollars to save 9,000 people? Some will say that you can't put a price on life, but people do. All of those people who avoid the doctor to stay out of death have put a price on how much their life is worth to them. If they don't care enough to go to the doctor, then why should we?
John Locke
Thu Oct 22 2009 16:01
@Thomas Bolton: Kronick’s paper cites that there would be little to no change in mortality rate based on whether the parties were insured or not. However, Kronick’s study accounts for high risk patients getting insurance differently than other studies, which could result in that skew towards not changing mortality. Not to mention the more widespread health care is, the more preventative measures can be taken-that person who just got health insurance when they got sick would have died with or without it; had they had access to care long before that, regular checkups and the ability to not avoid going to the doctor could have saved their life. Taking this into account Kronick even admits that 9,000 people would have survived had they had insurance. While compared to the overall population that is miniscule, isn’t that number still far too great?

As for health care being a right, the Declaration of Independence states, “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” That seems pretty clear to me. What could be a more basic right than life itself? Should we not do all that we can to save our fellow citizens? How could life not be a right, but free speech, gun ownership, voting, etc. all are? Thomas, you bring up food, but we have many programs in place so that people without food can receive it-The Food Stamp program for example. While food is expensive, its costs are not nearly as exorbitant as health care.

Health care isn’t just an issue facing the poor either. One procedure, even a routine one, such as appendicitis can leave you with sizable debt or tax your credit. One thing is clear: the status quo for health care in this country is not working.

Thomas Bolton
Thu Oct 22 2009 11:32
The commet about varying life expectancies in different countries is irrelevant. Richard Kronick, of the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine at the University of California, published a paper in which he wrotes, "there would not be much change in the number of deaths in the United States as a result of universal coverage."

I'm also curious as to what basis there is for health care as a basic human right. If that were the case, it would definitely change the nature of the debate, but I have yet to hear an explanation of that claim. Food is widely considered a basic human right, but many food companies make a profit. Profit is the motivation for nearly all major companies. It is doubtful that we would enjoy iPods without profit as a motivator.

Comparing the public option to public schools was a bad move. I know that everyone looks up to pubic schools as a shining become of academic excellence and economic efficiency, but those in power ended a school-voucher program in D.C. that successfully promoted academic excellence AND saved money.

As for those who can't afford health insurrance, I thought that's what Medicaid was for. As for promoting competition, reducing the things required of insurance companies should take care of that. A closing thougth, do we really want the same government that runs the DMV to be in charge of saving lives?







log out