Under a single-payer system, Americans would actually be paying a lower percentage of their incomes towards healthcare than they do now, so I'm not sure if the "slippery slope toward single-payer" argument is compelling.
Americans spend, on average, 16% of their wealth generated (not necessarily "income" because their healthcare payments are usually outside income) on healthcare, versus 10% in Canada and 8% in the U.K.
In fact, those worrying that their care would degrade under single-payer would be able to go ahead and chip in an extra 4% of their incomes on premium healthcare and easily get back every luxury they have under this system, and it would still be at at lower cost. That's what they do in the U.K. and even if the myth of ridiculous long lines were true, people can still supplement their government-paid healthcare with their own payments and get additional benefits, still at a lower cost than American healthcare.
I think that is a perfect example of how people would rather pay more for privilege than pay less for something everyone gets in equal amounts.
As to my third point, I don't know if you are aware but we actually already pay for the uninsured to get healthcare, and pay for many other unnecessary costs as a result. It is illegal for a hospital or emergency rooms to turn a sick person away - and it is much more expensive for people to visit emergency rooms than it would be had they been receiving routine care and caught the condition early. Even for the exact same treatment, emergency room care is up to 10 times more expensive.
This is actually one of the main reasons American healthcare costs are inflated - it's not that so much of our health bills go to corporate profits (though that is a factor), it's that the only care that poor people have access to is the most expensive possible care.
And you'd be mistaken if you don't think that lack of health insurance stresses the public system in other instances. Lack of access to healthcare has been clearly tied to higher crime rates, homelessness and unemployment. Over half of all bankruptcies are healthcare cost related, and banks and others absorb those costs. Being uninsured can lead to more paid sick days needed, reduced work productivity even on good days, higher rates of employment loss and use of welfare, and more acute manifestations of mental illness, which in turn leads to higher rates of hospitalization and incarceration.
Ultimately, it is VERY expensive to allow 15% of the population to be uninsured. It is expensive to have other people insured inadequately. Everyone across the board benefits from improving access. I don't see any evidence anywhere that middle-class or upper-middle-class people somehow benefit financially, via profits or via not having to pay through taxes, from the current system.
Matt, I wasn't arguing the importance of a health care initiative from a social perspective. I agree that some form of this bill is important.
To be completely honest, I'd have rather seen the states do it themselves. NY has actually been doing a pretty great job of this on its own for a while now. But I don't disagree with the fundamental notion that our constitution grants all people a right to LIFE, and subsequently, health.
I was simply trying to clarify a misperception of where the teaparty attitude was coming from. Since my parents are firmly in that camp and I discuss it with them daily, clarifying the essence of their perspective.
As far as the economic factors, I agree the business of healthcare is currently sloppy and expensive for a lot of stupid reasons. I agree a lot of that burden is put on the people. I disagree it should be put on the federal government. The dollar is already getting weaker and weaker and this has the potential to do some real damage to us in the global market unless the money can be re-budgeted from something else (such as this war that Obama doesn't seem interested in actually getting us out of).
I'm sure there are people who are totally selfishly motivated. I know some pseudo-moderates and even left-leaning people in my family who are "nervous" about healthcare reform but think that everyone still deserves healthcare.
But, I don't think tea party protesters care about the "unintended consequences." I think they disagree with the objective. That's my view.
How I arrived at this view: Canvassing for Obama full-time for four months leading up to the 2008 election, going door to door, saying that healthcare was my #1 reason for supporting Obama (which is the truth) and hearing there responses. Leading response in opposition: "I don't think everyone deserves healthcare." Followed by: "healthcare is a privilege, not a right," followed by: "if they can't pay for it they shouldn't have it." I talked with these people extensively. They were pretty explicit in stating that this was their view.
Follow the Tea Party protests, and again, this is what you here. Sarah Palin and other leaders sugar-coat it a little with "in a perfect world everyone would have healthcare but in this world we can't have that." Uh, yeah, so I suppose Europe is their "perfect world?!" I also hear a lot of "That's not the American way."
I'm sure your kitchen table conversations are accurate to what your parents believe - but my comments are straight from the horse's mouth. When someone's core argument is "they shouldn't have healthcare" and their auxiliary arguments are "it's too expensive anyway," you can't trust the auxiliary argument as the true motivation.
I'm not sure how states would accomplish your objective, btw. Are you saying the federal government should mandate that the states come up with a way to make healthcare universal? I don't know if that's Constitutional. The fact is that most states haven't bothered with doing it, and the states with LOWEST and worst healthcare coverage (Texas leads, followed Florida and then the rest of the South) are never gonna deal with the issue at all.
Americans spend, on average, 16% of their wealth generated (not necessarily "income" because their healthcare payments are usually outside income) on healthcare, versus 10% in Canada and 8% in the U.K.
In fact, those worrying that their care would degrade under single-payer would be able to go ahead and chip in an extra 4% of their incomes on premium healthcare and easily get back every luxury they have under this system, and it would still be at at lower cost. That's what they do in the U.K. and even if the myth of ridiculous long lines were true, people can still supplement their government-paid healthcare with their own payments and get additional benefits, still at a lower cost than American healthcare.
I think that is a perfect example of how people would rather pay more for privilege than pay less for something everyone gets in equal amounts.
As to my third point, I don't know if you are aware but we actually already pay for the uninsured to get healthcare, and pay for many other unnecessary costs as a result. It is illegal for a hospital or emergency rooms to turn a sick person away - and it is much more expensive for people to visit emergency rooms than it would be had they been receiving routine care and caught the condition early. Even for the exact same treatment, emergency room care is up to 10 times more expensive.
This is actually one of the main reasons American healthcare costs are inflated - it's not that so much of our health bills go to corporate profits (though that is a factor), it's that the only care that poor people have access to is the most expensive possible care.
And you'd be mistaken if you don't think that lack of health insurance stresses the public system in other instances. Lack of access to healthcare has been clearly tied to higher crime rates, homelessness and unemployment. Over half of all bankruptcies are healthcare cost related, and banks and others absorb those costs. Being uninsured can lead to more paid sick days needed, reduced work productivity even on good days, higher rates of employment loss and use of welfare, and more acute manifestations of mental illness, which in turn leads to higher rates of hospitalization and incarceration.
Ultimately, it is VERY expensive to allow 15% of the population to be uninsured. It is expensive to have other people insured inadequately. Everyone across the board benefits from improving access. I don't see any evidence anywhere that middle-class or upper-middle-class people somehow benefit financially, via profits or via not having to pay through taxes, from the current system.
Reply
To be completely honest, I'd have rather seen the states do it themselves. NY has actually been doing a pretty great job of this on its own for a while now. But I don't disagree with the fundamental notion that our constitution grants all people a right to LIFE, and subsequently, health.
I was simply trying to clarify a misperception of where the teaparty attitude was coming from. Since my parents are firmly in that camp and I discuss it with them daily, clarifying the essence of their perspective.
As far as the economic factors, I agree the business of healthcare is currently sloppy and expensive for a lot of stupid reasons. I agree a lot of that burden is put on the people. I disagree it should be put on the federal government. The dollar is already getting weaker and weaker and this has the potential to do some real damage to us in the global market unless the money can be re-budgeted from something else (such as this war that Obama doesn't seem interested in actually getting us out of).
Reply
But, I don't think tea party protesters care about the "unintended consequences." I think they disagree with the objective. That's my view.
How I arrived at this view: Canvassing for Obama full-time for four months leading up to the 2008 election, going door to door, saying that healthcare was my #1 reason for supporting Obama (which is the truth) and hearing there responses. Leading response in opposition: "I don't think everyone deserves healthcare." Followed by: "healthcare is a privilege, not a right," followed by: "if they can't pay for it they shouldn't have it." I talked with these people extensively. They were pretty explicit in stating that this was their view.
Follow the Tea Party protests, and again, this is what you here. Sarah Palin and other leaders sugar-coat it a little with "in a perfect world everyone would have healthcare but in this world we can't have that." Uh, yeah, so I suppose Europe is their "perfect world?!" I also hear a lot of "That's not the American way."
I'm sure your kitchen table conversations are accurate to what your parents believe - but my comments are straight from the horse's mouth. When someone's core argument is "they shouldn't have healthcare" and their auxiliary arguments are "it's too expensive anyway," you can't trust the auxiliary argument as the true motivation.
I'm not sure how states would accomplish your objective, btw. Are you saying the federal government should mandate that the states come up with a way to make healthcare universal? I don't know if that's Constitutional. The fact is that most states haven't bothered with doing it, and the states with LOWEST and worst healthcare coverage (Texas leads, followed Florida and then the rest of the South) are never gonna deal with the issue at all.
Reply
Leave a comment