This format is not in MLA format (although the word document is).
The United States of America is arguably the contemporary superpower of the world. People of all races, ethnicities, and backgrounds across the globe migrate to the U.S. for a variety of reasons. For example, the freedom of thought, quality of education, and the superior quality of our health care system are just some factors that influence a person’s affinity for migrating to the United States. Indeed, this preceding statement may have been true a few decades ago. Today, however, we may need to modify it just a bit. While it is true that this country is undoubtedly the leader in certain aspects that are unmatched across the world, the current health care system ranks among some of the worst in the globe (WHO). Today, in the United States, unpaid medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcies. Furthermore, nearly 47 million American citizens have no access to health care, and consequently 18,000 people die each year because of this inaccessibility (DeNavas). Ironically, these pitfalls of the health care system are clear and evident to our leaders in Washington. So why hasn’t anything been done? The capitalistic economic system in the United States has allowed for insurance companies, pharmaceutical industries, and the like to profit an absurd amount of money over the years. Specifically, these companies have been able to make so much money that they can afford lobbyists to sway your leader’s votes in Washington. Consequently, the current “health care crisis” has a clear divide in our country (if you don’t believe me go ahead and watch CNN for 30 minutes). Opponents of reform say that health care shouldn’t be changed as it moves our country towards a “socialistic” rather than capitalistic nation, which our founding fathers wanted, and that the proposal for reform will ultimately cost the nation too much money. These opponents are clearly fueled by insurance companies and are not looking at the future of our current system. Before we talk about a solution to this current health care crisis, it is noteworthy to discuss the detailed nature of the crisis, the quality of U.S. health care compared to other countries across the world, and opponents who are against reform.
Before defining the crisis, it is important to understand the actual system of health care that we have in our country today. In the United States, we have a privatized health care system not run by the government in which individual corporations provide compensation for a person’s hospital costs, prescriptions, doctor visits, etc. These are called insurance companies. Over the last century, the government has had to step in and create assistance programs for the elderly and those who absolutely can not afford health care, better known as Medicare and Medicaid, paid for by the citizens of this country (that’s what you see on your paystub) (Bybee). Medicare and Medicaid are practically the only hand that our government plays in health care. Otherwise, a few large insurance companies like Blue Cross Blue Shield and Humana are what the majority of citizens are enrolled under. Similarly, pharmaceutical companies (those companies that actually make drugs, like Xanax, Lipitor, Vicodin, Prozac) operate with very few competitors. Now, for those “economics-challenged” readers, this is called an oligopoly (almost like a monopoly, meaning there are very few companies competing with each other). Because of this fact, and the lack of competition, insurance companies and pharmaceutical industries can (without restriction) increase their costs without fear of losing many customers. This is the foundation of the “health care crisis” (Wilensky).
The unrestricted growth of insurance companies and pharmaceutical industries are the primary reason the World Health Organization has ranked the overall U.S. Health Care system 37th in the world. Because of this growth, the average price of health insurance per person in the United States is about $7,000, making our health care system the most expensive one in the world. One would think that this equals a similar status of the quality of our health care. Yet, millions and millions of Americans do NOT have health insurance. If there were 12 average, middle class Americans in a room who all had a fatal illness where a kidney transplant would save their lives, 2 of those Americans would die because they couldn’t afford it. The 10 other Americans in the room would be spending a chunk of their paycheck on their insurance coverage, leaving little money for a mortgage, car, childrens’ universities, and so on. Furthermore, for those Americans getting insurance through their employer, their paycheck should be much higher than what it is today. Even the government, who provides only Medicare and Medicaid through citizen tax dollars, is spending nearly a fifth of all tax dollars on these programs. Other programs, such as federal student aid for college, public schools, transportation, and so on are being cut as a result. Maybe this is why our schools are ranking lower and lower among those in the world. Under our current system in the future, since the baby boom generation will retire and put loads of citizens into Medicare, the United States will inevitably be using every single tax dollar on health care. This imminent crisis needs reform as soon as possible. Before we discuss the solution, let us take a look at where we stand in the world (DeNavas, Mullan).
The United States, with the most expensive health care system in the world, has a health care system that ranks 37th next to Slovenia and Costa Rica. France, the number 1 rated health care system, spends half as much (proportionally) on health care and has a higher life expectancy than the United States (WHO). The first question that obviously pops up deals with the difference of health care in the U.S. and the world. Most countries across the globe have health care systems in which every single person is covered, where the government runs the system and the citizens pay for it through their tax dollars. This means that the insurance companies (i.e., the government in this system) have no profit and consequently a more quality, efficient health care system. Today, the United States has a high relative infant mortality rate (more children are dying at birth) and a lower relative life expectancy to comparable countries such as France, Japan, United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, whose health care systems rank higher than ours (WHO, Mullan,). Although the need for reform is evidently vital to our country, some argue that it shouldn’t be changed at all (Bybee).
Opponents of health care reform say that our country should never move to a more “socialistic” system of health care. Yet most countries that are doing better in health care than we are have a government-run system. Opponents to health care reform in the United States argue that this country should not be moving towards such a system, as it is against the principles of the founding fathers of this country. The market, they say, should fix itself and an introduction of more competition should fix the industry (Bybee, 63). These opponents are undoubtedly influenced by lobbyists from insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Furthermore, the evident crisis where companies are relentlessly increasing their profit is not even discussed with this opposition. Statistics tell us that government-intervention leads to a better quality health care system, and that it is very difficult for a new insurance company to introduce competition against these large scale insurance companies. Yet the irony of these opponents’ arguments is that the reform that many people are supporting doesn’t even move towards a “socialistic” system. In fact, it introduces competition through government intervention so that insurance companies are forced to lower their costs to compete for their customers.
The solution to this health care crisis is surprisingly a simple one, and is coincidentally the proposal of our current U.S. President. In general, a new government-run insurance company should be created, where this insurance company is self-sufficient, running almost like a private one. This “public option” that citizens can choose from will force insurance companies to compete for their customers. Furthermore, insurance companies have to be regulated. They shouldn’t be able to deem someone ineligible for insurance because of their medical history, and they shouldn’t be able to drop someone from coverage because of a new illness. Also, citizens should receive assistance in buying insurance (tax credits), and be protected from bankruptcy due to medical bills (White House). Again, opponents disagree. They say that this ideal system of health care will not only move towards a socialistic system but also will cost too much (Bybee). They fail to realize the pending costs of health care in the future, with the rising amount of people retiring and the increasing costs of health care. They also fail to realize that the public option will be “self sufficient” and that the said proposals of tax credits and protection from bankruptcy have a proven track record in other countries across the world. In addition, opponents’ claims of a “health care socialism” are foundationless. If the United States creates a single “exchange” where citizens must go through for insurance, then every insurance company is visible to a citizen. So, if a citizen without health care were to get health care, he or she would have to go through one medium, where prices of all insurance companies in the United States are visible. This also provides competition in addition to the “public option” previously explained, which directly addresses one of the key points of lack of a capitalistic market approach (i.e., competition) in an opponent’s argument against health care reform.
It is evident that the United States health care system needs change. Thousands of people across the country are dying because they don’t have insurance. A huge chunk of 47 million Americans can’t even afford being covered for health care. The United States ranks 37th in the world in quality of health care, but ranks 1st in the world in terms of how expensive it is. Yet, even with all of these agreed upon statistics, opponents argue that health care reform is too expensive and reduces our country’s tradition of a free market health care approach where companies can compete with each other to reduce their fees. Ironically, the solution to this health care crisis does just that. It introduces competition to these insurance companies by creating a public option while protecting and helping Americans with the finances of health care. It is, in my opinion, ridiculous that these companies have attempted to sway our leaders in congress to refuse health care reform. Our health care needs to change, and it needs to change immediately. Otherwise, we will have a crisis that will amplify over the next couple of decades. Too many people are dying because our leaders can not come to a conclusion on health care, and too much money is being wasted so these insurance companies can increase their profits. The crisis is an imminent threat to the status of our country, and reform needs to take place as soon as it can. Needless to say, the future of the United States depends on it.
Works Cited
Bybee, Roger. “Can we have universal health care?” Dissent. 56 (2009): 63-69.
DeNavas-Walt, Carmen, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Jessica C. Smith. “Income, Povery, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States.” U.S. Census Bureau. Current Population Reports, P60-235. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2008.
Mullan, Seble, & Jolley. “Aging, Primary Care, and Self-Sufficiency: Health Care Workforce Challenges Ahead. The Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics. 36 (2008): 703-708.
White House. “The Obama Plan. Stability & Security for All Americans.” 2009. 8 Nov. 2009.
.
WHO. “World Health Statistics 2009”. World Health Organization. 2009. 8 Nov. 2009. .
Wilensky, Gail. “Health Care Reform: Lessons from the Past, Lessons for the Future.” The Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics. 36 (2008): 725-727.
