Home > Politics > Examining the Rhetoric Against Universal Health Care

Examining the Rhetoric Against Universal Health Care

One of the top stories in the news this week has been the increased tension surrounding universal health care. (See for instance Health debate turns hostile at meetings.)  The plan being discussed in congress certainly has its problems, but unfortunately we have reached the point where meaningful discussion has transitioned into hyperbolic arguing with emphasis on scare tactics, skewed statistics and atypical anecdotal stories — and that is from both sides.

Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin

A prime example of this can be found in a statement by Sarah Palin which she posted on her facebook page.  Here is an exerpt:

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.

Discussion of health care does involve life and death decisions.  It also involves money.  In our current system money, not human rights and human dignity is the primary consideration.  It takes money to have health care.  The insurance companies are out to make money.  They make more money by charging people more and paying less.

Lets look at some of the charges against a universal plan, and see how they apply to the current system

  • Health care will be rationed – People are worried about the government telling them what procedures they can get and where they can get it.  Guess what… that already happens.  Insurance companies dictate which doctors you can go to and which procedures are covered.  Plus, those without health insurance can’t get the procedures at all, so we are rationing for rich.  We may disagree whether health care is a right or a privileged, but I am not comfortable with the deciding factor on who lives and dies being wealthy.  Palin argues the elderly, sick and disabled will be the ones most affected.  The irony is that these groups are the ones who already have the hardest time getting coverage.  Even with a minor pre-existing condition, getting coverage  is very difficult if it is not employer provided.  Again, we see rationing already exists, but the only people who get it are the skilled.
  • There will be a bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor – Guess what… there already is.  If you look at the chart designed by the GOP in order to scare people into thinking things are more complicated than they are, you will realize most of the boxes and lines already exist.  We already have government involvement in health care.  Universal health care would not add another layer, it would simply change who you are dealing with.  As it is, the insurance companies stand between you and your doctor and they are motivated to not provide you with service because doing so would cost additional money.
  • health-care-chart

  • America has the best health care in the world and that will be lost – This one is all about definitions.  What is undisputed is that America has the most expensive health care.  We pay on average more than double the average of every other developed nation in the world.  However, even after spending that much we still are 17th in the world in terms of life expectancy.  According to the World Health Organization, we are far from having the best system:

The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy.

I think there is plenty of room for discussion around this topic, but we first must be honest with the system we have.  America is not plotting new ground here, instead we are following every other developed nation in the world who has chosen to go this path.

  1. susan
    August 8th, 2009 at 13:02 | #1

    I have never really gotten into politics but this is the worse bill ever. Shes said it right the elderly, sick and dissabled are going to be the ones suffering if you make it through life with out being severly sick or needing extensive medical care its plan is for you but not for the average “JOE” that at some point will have the bad news of needing certain medical needs that this plan can turn you down for because your own goverment doesnt think the money you pay into taxes is worth spending to save your life on a doctors say so’s. So there goes medical miricales out the door and that miricale might be what your waiting on and dont get if you vote for this plan

  2. August 8th, 2009 at 16:19 | #2

    Susan,

    Thank you for your comments. I think there is plenty of room to debate the merits of this plan. My point was not that Obama’s plan will solve our problems, but instead to point out that our current system is full of holes as well.

    I spent 6 months fighting the insurance companies to get any coverage at all. I was denied coverage because of a test order by my doctor (which came back negative). I eventually convinced them to cover me. It was eye-opening to go through this. I realized that unless you have a good job that provides insurance, you not only need money, but you need to healthy in the first place. Our current system does not cover those who are already ill.

    I think it is easy to descend into hyperbole on this discussion and that is unfortunate.

  3. David A
    August 8th, 2009 at 18:44 | #3

    Nice post. I agree especially with the misconception that a universal health plan will put the government in charge of your health related decisions. I’m not sure, however, that our current health care system can be fully blamed for the life expectancy point you raise in your third bullet point. I think that has more to do with the life style most Americans have chosen for themselves. Do you know, out of curiosity, how much of the proposed universal health care plan will focus on preventative treatments?

    My concern with a government-run health care is not necessarily the upfront cost, but the fact that ultimately, our government will be in charge of the implementation and funding of the plan, not at the individual level, but overall. Let’s look at education as an example. Right now, the government controls the funding for education virtually across all levels, from early childhood ed through public higher ed institutions. I don’t know what it’s like on a national scale, but in Florida one of the first things to get cut in crunch time is education. I’d like to think that healthcare is so important to society that the government wouldn’t even dream of scaling back if the need arises, but I think education is almost equally as important as health care. It’s enough to make me think twice about it.

  4. August 8th, 2009 at 22:03 | #4

    @David A

    Thanks for the thoughts Dave.

    I agree that life expectancy is not the only issue that matters, and a lot of that has to do with Americans’ choices. That is why I included the WHO quote; it includes a much broader range of measurements when assessing quality of care.

    The government is not efficient, but that is partially because it does not have to make a profit. No matter what, the insurance company is going to make more than it ever pays out. They have to recoup costs so they can charge outragous rates, deny coverage, and refuse to pay bills.

  5. David A
    August 9th, 2009 at 20:56 | #5

    Very true about the government not being out for a profit. However, that can be a catch-22. I think there is something to be said about a company competing in a free market, because ultimately they are held accountable by their customers and the competition. Who is the government accountable to in this situation? If they decide down the road to reduce the funding of a universal plan, where do the insureds turn? And on that note, with health care being the hot potato topic that it is, what can be said about the long-term stability of a government sponsored plan?

    I think your original post was actually addressing misconceptions planted by supporters and opposers of the health care plan, and I actually agree with you on that note. In fact, I believe this tactic is prevalent in most levels of politics, and it is really frustrating. I think it is a significant barrier to progress. It’s easy to create a misconception, get people scarred, and then go ‘fix’ it and go home a hero. I’d like to see someone go find a real problem and actually get their hands dirty. I’m encouraged that President Obama has taken up the health care problem, because it is certainly one that needs attention.

  1. No trackbacks yet.