Healthcare Reform Saga – Part I: Polar Opposites
March 5th, 2010 | BlueSky, NurseTesting
Health Reform – controversial topic, yes, I know!
Welcome to Part I of the Healthcare Reform saga. Scouting through a few of my favorite journalist I realized the vast perceptions on both sides of the spectrum.
Moving beyond the typical pro / con arguments, some venture to suggest ways to cut healthcare costs all together. The idea here is that Healthcare Reform does not solely concern providing health insurance for all Amerians. With the plethora of information available, I have chosen to separate this post into Part I: Polar Opposites and Part II: Why Didn’t the White House Think of This!
So, here we go. Passion at its finest…
***Please do not read into the Pro’s being listed first. One side had to be listed first, and Pro’s generally come before Con’s…I truly am trying to show both sides without a bias!***
Pro – Reform
Unnecessary Death Counts Will Rise
Ron Pollack, Executive Director of Families USA states, “Failure to pass health reform—in effect, doing nothing to make health coverage and care affordable—results in…the ultimate, inexcusable consequence—lost lives.”
“Every day in 2010, approximately 68 non-elderly adult Americans across the nation will die prematurely due to lack of health coverage. If health reform fails, the Consumer Health Report "Lives on the Line: The Deadly Consequences of Delaying Health Reform", warns that the number of deaths would grow from 68 per day in 2010 to 84 per day in 2019,” summarizes Caralyn Davis from FierceHealthcare in “No insurance? Consequences Could be Deadly”.
Stimulate Economic Productivity
"Providing all citizens the right to health care is good for economic productivity. When people have access to health care, they live healthier and longer lives, thus allowing them to contribute to society for a longer time. The cost of bad health and shorter life spans of Americans suffering from uninsurance amounts to $65-130 billion annually." From Pro & Con’s Argument: "Should all Americans have the right (be entitled) to health care?"
Constitutional Right
Many Americans have jumped on the band wagon that Health Insurance being affordable and provided to all citizens falls under the protection of the Preamble of the Constituation which states its purpose is to "promote general welfare." Remember however that promote, not provide. Much the same letters, but very different meanings.
These comments only scratch the surface on the conviencing arguments pro healthcare reform. But, one would be naïve to look at just one side of the story…
Anti – Reform
Deter Competition = Hike Prices & Limit Quality of Services
I found many well-written arguments for government play in Healthcare leading to an overall increase in prices (the monopoly effect) and decrease in quality care. However, I felt Chandler J. Rapsom from Workforce Management eloquently summarized the idea in the article “What Health Care Reform Really Needs: Effective Wellness and Free-Market Competition.”
"By removing any incentives for individuals to take control of their health and wellness, chronic conditions will soar in both prevalence and severity…By failing to include mandates that would level the playing field and allow insurers, third-party administrators and self-insured employers to compete equitably for providers and patients, there is no incentive for dominant carriers to keep premium costs down and expand the scope of coverage."
The increase in demand for healthcare may also decrease quality of care due to healthcare professionals becoming overstretched.
Detrimental to American Big Business
As sticky a subject as when his book, “Where Have All the Leaders Gone,” first came out, Lee Iacocca lists the debauchery in American politics and mentions that Healthcare costs already run American corporations into the red.
"We’re running the biggest deficit in the history of the world, and it’s getting worse every day!
We’ve lost the manufacturing edge to Asia , while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs."
Why force companies to increase spending on Healthcare when this could further inhibit entrepreneurship and achieving the proverbial American Dream?
Socialism Decreases Strive for Excellence
Although some argue that Healthcare Reform should not be classified as socialism, many believe the similarities are too obvious to brush aside.
"Providing a right to health care is socialism and is bad for economic productivity. Socialized medicine is comparable to food stamps, housing subsidies, and welfare–all of which is charity. Distributing charity to society makes people lazy, decreases the incentive for people to strive for excellence, and inhibits productivity." From Pro & Con’s argument: "Should all Americans have the right (be entitled) to health care?"
Part I Wrap-Up
So, if these Pro’s and Con’s got your blood boiling or gears turning, just wait for the ideas coming up in next week’s posting – Part II: Why Didn’t the White House Think of This! Feel free to add comments or other arguments on the Pro’s and Con’s to Healthcare Reform.
2 comments
I appreciate the debate on this topic but I have to say I don’t think the Pro’s and Con’s presented here are very objective.
For example, how about listing a Pro as being that American’s will have the security of having healthcare. No longer will people have to be financially ruined if they get sick – whether they have insurance or not. For example – my co-worker who got breast cancer last year wouldn’t be paying $12,000 for certain treatments (that are widely available around the world) and have to file for bankruptcy after moving in with her parents. And she has insurance. One might say this is a ‘Pro.’
Also – for the ‘Cons’ you list ‘Socialism.’ Is this really an objective analysis if you’re coming out of the gate and calling this Socialism? How is this Socialism any more than MediCare or Veteran’s Benefits or Unemployment Benefits? These things have been around since the 40’s and no one would suggest that the U.S. has had anything but a vibrant and thriving Capitalist economy. Implementing ‘social’ programs does not equate to ‘Socialism.’
On competition. There is only a faux competitive environment today. There is competition for initial price options from insurance carriers but after that, all the true costs of healthcare are hidden because all we see are the co-pays. What’s going on behind them is price fixing and manipulation. Hence, the problem of skyrocketing healthcare costs. Further, the government option is just that – an option. The government provides options in many industries and does not put companies in these industries out of business. It’s simply an alternative.
Finally, I think you’ve completely misinterpreted the information regarding businesses. The costs they’re talking about that are making U.S. businesses less competitive are the costs from the current system. Having a public option will mean that companies no longer solely bare the burden of providing healthcare to their employees. This burden keeps start ups from hiring employees. It also puts us at a disadvantage internationally because very other industrialized country provides healthcare to their citizens. Their business do not have this cost. Forcing these costs on U.S. businesses is what’s causing our inability to compete. A government run healthcare program will decrease, if not eliminate the burden of healthcare costs on U.S. employers, not increase them.
To be clear, I’m no fan of the government. However, the private insurance companies have failed to deliver a workable solution to healthcare coverage. I think it’s hard for anyone to disagree with that. Their failure is what has made it necessary for the government to deliver an alternative.
Jason – Thank you so much for your candid response! I agree that the “Socialism” ploy does compromise the ability to consider these arguments objectively. As you may have noticed, I tried to select some of the ‘hot topics’ from both sides of the spectrum. And unfortunately, the socialism term is one of the more widely-coined phrases that the “Anti-Reform” side is using.
I truly do appreciate your feedback and hope that you check back in later this week for Part II so I can hear your feedback on some of the suggestions floating around on potential alternatives!
Meredith
Leave a Comment