| Doctors Debate Universal Health Care: Pros and Cons From the Experts |
|
“Health insurance is expensive, and not everyone can afford it,” goes one argument. "The government should provide everyone with access to paid-for health care.” “That's not fair," goes the other. “For example, why should everyone have to pay for people who choose not to take care of themselves, such as smokers?”
We asked two doctors with strong opinions on the topic to share their side. Here’s what they had to say. You can get in on the debate here. Sign up for the FREE MyFamilyDoctorMag.com newsletter here!
FOR How can there be a debate over whether universal health care is itself a desirable goal? A 2002 Institutes of Medicine study concluded that more than 18,000 Americans die every year because they’re uninsured. Some kind of health coverage for every citizen would mean fewer child deaths from asthma, fewer cancer deaths in minority communities and fewer veterans who depend on emergency rooms for their primary care. The real questions are how universal care would be paid for and who would decide levels of reimbursement For
Patrick Whelan, M.D, Ph.D., practicing rheumatologist, national executive director of Catholic Democrats (a public-advocacy organization) and Catholic member of the Democratic National Committee's Faith Advisory Council. Health insurance companies spend heavily to condemn something called “socialized medicine,” recognizing that any single-payer plan would likely result in heavy losses for their industry. But no major organizations or national political figures have advocated creating a system like Great Britain’s, where the government owns all the facilities and employs all the doctors and nurses. Two other myths about universal care are that doctors oppose it and that quality of care would suffer. But a plurality of physicians, particularly primary-care doctors, supports national health insurance. And there is now strong evidence that, even in developed countries with addiction problems like ours, universal coverage correlates with improved quality of health across the socioeconomic spectrum. AGAINST Against
John S. O’Shea, M.D., M.P.A., F.A.C.S., practicing general surgeon and former fellow with conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation. America is often criticized for its lack of a universal health-care system comparable to the Europeans and Canadians, even though Germany, the United Kingdom and even Canada are increasingly turning to the private sector in order to relieve the financial burden on government and solve serious delivery problems, most notably “rationing by queue,” the prolonged wait times for many services, including cancer treatment and cardiac surgery. Compared to the private sector, government programs are inefficient and the higher costs have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, or even medical research and development. This is a tradeoff that most Americans would not be willing to make. If low-income persons find health-care coverage unaffordable, they should be subsidized by the government, but they should retain ultimate ownership of their health-care resources and the choice about how those resources will be utilized. Such patient ownership and choice will create the demand for price and quality transparency necessary to make value-based health-care decisions. The fundamental flaw in universal health-care systems is a misplacement of incentives. The decisions that drive health-care costs and quality of care are made by individual patients and their health-care providers. These decisions should not be influenced by universal government mandates, administered pricing systems or expenditure targets, but should instead be based on an adequately informed assessment by individual patients and their providers about the value of services in a particular clinical situation.
Last updated and/or approved: February 2010. Original article appeared in Jan/Feb 2008 print issue .
Bookmark
Email This
Trackback(0)
Comments (147)
  written by F L , August 25, 2010 MA health care reform has been a disaster for my family. My wife and I are fined about $2400 each year by the state of Massachusetts for not buying health insurance. I’m almost 60, been layoff, and jobs are hard to find. We live basically off our savings and investments and always paid our own medical costs; but, since receiving the fines our family budget is now out of balance, I‘ve had to reduced my insulin shots to save money; this will eventually lead to organ failure. The state is literally killing me with there fine. I’m being fined for being responsible and paying my own medical bills. If the fines continue and get bigger we plan on moving out of the state when I retire to save money; my pension will follow me and the state will loose out on our income tax revenue. Being fined for living? Being fined for not buying a financial product? I love the people of MA but hate its insensitive no-it-all politicians. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
 written by Jackson M , August 23, 2010 Your seventeen but you can't even spell the word interest right? report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
 written by Joshua , August 01, 2010 Your are absolutely corect on one thing, this is a moral issue. So, should the government dictate what is moral, and who should provide these moral services? As it stands, some people will have a larger burden to supply this 'moral' service. And the government is forcing them to do so. So why dont we let the government force people t o do volunteer work? or How about take communion, or follow one denomonation of one religon- --Religon by definition is moral, therefor, your point of view says it is okay for them to mandate such actions. This obviously violates the 1st amendment. Secondly, 'dying in the streets'? Where? I live in an urban area, and I have nbever seen anyone who is medically opn their last leg. In fact, most of the unemployed and 'poor' people in my area are fat. you want ptoor and needy, go to rural China or Africa. you'll notice that they are skinny, desiese ridden, and mishappen. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
 written by Katie , July 31, 2010 I understand everyone's stance that we shouldn't have to pay the way for people who don't take care of themselves, but this is more of a moral dilemma. There are good people out there dying in the streets everyday because they cannot afford decent health care plans. The insurance companies are practically raping us with their insane premiums! And thank goodness there's been some sort of health care reform- now these money-sucking leeches can't turn away people for pre-existing conditions, such as cancer or pregnancy. I would much rather pay a few more tax dollars to know that if my child broke an ankle I could have it fixed without paying hundreds of dollars to some insurance company. If you are against a national health care system then I assume that you or no one on your family has Cause it is just wrong what these insurance companies are getting away with. Where is the limit? When is enough enough? Think about your public library...even your local fire department; all of these fall into the same category. These are services that we pay tax dollars for to be available to everyone. Your house may have never caught on fire, but you'd happily keep paying those taxes for when and if the day ever came. Wouldn't you want to have access to a doctor if you really needed it...without having to worry about how you'd pay for it? With all the crap we are taxed on, I'd much rather know that my money is going towards the greater good-- taking care of my fellow man. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Joshua , June 29, 2010 Out spoken by a 7th grader. That's hardcore. Josh Approves =D (don't expect a good discussion here though, nobody seems to respond to direct engagements) report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
 written by Ellery , June 29, 2010 I'm 13, and I'm taking a speech class to debate the idea of Universal Health Care, I was assigned to oppose it, and so far I am agreeing with it. Health Care should be bought, and owned, for it is a privilege. I believe that super healthy, fit people, should NOT have to pay for the lazy ass couch potatoes, who sit around all day, smoke, get cancer, and expect US to pay for it! People would take riskier actions, knowing that if they do get hurt, then the U.S.A. will pay for it, and the people who really need it, will be subject to longer waits! I believe you should have to purchase health care, an no taxes should go up. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
written by Joshua , May 21, 2010 What is a right anyways? Is it something that HAS to be given to you, or is it something that cannot be legally taken from you? If you look at the rights that Parliament granted to Englishmen, and later the rights that the colonists fought for and wrote for America, most of them were existing practices that the populace did not want the government to be able to use to control people. For example, the Government cannot silence citizens who criticize it. Good, constructive criticism is always welcome. This service that we call health care/insurance is an action between citizens. Classifying it as a right is like saying "you MUST lend your neighbor your tools whenever they want them." The "right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" was a line to say that the government couldn’t hold dominion over you by threatening to or take it from you. It has NOTHING to do with prolonging it or with giving it to people. And if you think that slotting this under the right to live is appropriate, then I think you need to re-evaluate how you get to be alive. Your existence is not granted by the government. Plus, if you think about it, any sort of power or ability of the government to do anything is contrary to what the Founding Fathers wanted in America. Everything they did in the constitution was about making rules on how much the government could do, especially at the federal level. Note the Articles of Confederation. They were not supportive of the government having the power to grant rights- the rights in the Constitution are rights the government cannot take away, not ones they give. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
 written by maat , May 21, 2010 Why is it that people think that healthcare is a right? TV's are cheap because they are not a right. It is funny how so many people have a long list of luxuries but no money for healthcare expenses. When the constitution was established, food, clothing, shelter and healthcare were not rights, why are they now? Why is the government distorting the value of these comodities? They force these prices up then make them a right once they are not affordable, this does not make any since. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
 written by andy , May 21, 2010 I think healthcare is extremely important. The first right to people should be the right to live. It is more important than the freedom of speech, education, or anything else because dead people cannot excercise those rights. You guys are awesome report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -4
 written by Jema Cantrell , May 12, 2010 Im doing a persausive speech against the univerasal healthcare. I am only seveenteen and I already have a big intreast in it. i feel like the cons out ways the pros. The way i look at it we shouldt throw money away on healthcare when America has the best healthcare plan out there and use this money to get vets of the street or put it towrads peoples education. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Write comment
|
One of the top issues on your mind this year is likely to be health care. Buzz word: universal.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
