(USA) A Conservative Case for Universal Health Coverage
Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2014 6:51 pmHello NSG, Rhodisia here. I describe myself as a social conservative, but see some very clear arguments for universal health coverage. This thread is intended to encourage debate and the free exchange of ideas regarding healthcare. Here is my conservative case for universal health coverage:
1. The current healthcare system, as it stands, is woefully inefficient. It's a national shame that we allow this system to perpetuate.
As a percentage of GDP, we outspend every other country on healthcare through private insurers, then again in government programs like Medicare and Medicaid, but our quality of healthcare is shameful - especially pursuant to treatable and preventable conditions. We consistently fall behind Canada, a country with universal coverage and our proverbial "little brother", in three crucial areas: in quality of care, in accessibility, and in cost. This is also true in almost all European countries. Think about it: we're a world power, and we're three hundred million strong, but we can't even make sure our citizens recover from illnesses? That is ridiculous, and the fact that we as Americans allow this to continue is shameful.
2. The current American mindset with healthcare is penny-wise and dollar-foolish.
Going back to 1776, the entire American Revolution started because of taxes. We as a nation clearly don't like taxes - but at the same time, we allow ourselves, our children, and our elderly to get sick and die from entirely curable diseases. It is far better to plan for 40 or 50 years down the line, when the next generation of Americans are in power, and we're old and fat and sick and need a doctor, than to worry about short-term ROI and taxes. I for one would much rather be taxed slightly higher than to worry about my future regarding health coverage.
3. We have certain religious and moral imperatives to take care of our own citizens - including the poor, the elderly, the disabled and the mentally unstable.
If some of my fellow American conservatives relentlessly insist that America is a Christian nation (which it isn't), then whatever happened to Ephesians 4:32? You know, "Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you?" If anything, the current attitude of calling universal health coverage "communism" is Gluttony - wanting to constantly stuff your face, but never leaving anything for the disadvantaged segments of society. If we continue to call ourselves a Christian nation, then I think it is better that we start living to some of those ideals. That, and the fact that allowing our citizens to die from lack of medical attention is morally wrong.
4. Economies of scale inherently favor a single-payer system.
Any socioeconomic institution benefits from having a larger number of participants rather than few. Healthcare is no exception to this economic law.
5. A single-payer system would reduce the number of government personnel needed to administer it - thus keeping the government from expanding.
Even when accounting for population differences, Canada - which has had a single-payer system since 1984 - still has fewer government personnel administering the funds necessary to provide universal health coverage. Compare that to the US, where our patchwork system of private insurers, Medicare, Obamacare and other laws make it very unruly to administer - for coverage that still doesn't reach our most vulnerable citizens.
1. The current healthcare system, as it stands, is woefully inefficient. It's a national shame that we allow this system to perpetuate.
As a percentage of GDP, we outspend every other country on healthcare through private insurers, then again in government programs like Medicare and Medicaid, but our quality of healthcare is shameful - especially pursuant to treatable and preventable conditions. We consistently fall behind Canada, a country with universal coverage and our proverbial "little brother", in three crucial areas: in quality of care, in accessibility, and in cost. This is also true in almost all European countries. Think about it: we're a world power, and we're three hundred million strong, but we can't even make sure our citizens recover from illnesses? That is ridiculous, and the fact that we as Americans allow this to continue is shameful.
2. The current American mindset with healthcare is penny-wise and dollar-foolish.
Going back to 1776, the entire American Revolution started because of taxes. We as a nation clearly don't like taxes - but at the same time, we allow ourselves, our children, and our elderly to get sick and die from entirely curable diseases. It is far better to plan for 40 or 50 years down the line, when the next generation of Americans are in power, and we're old and fat and sick and need a doctor, than to worry about short-term ROI and taxes. I for one would much rather be taxed slightly higher than to worry about my future regarding health coverage.
3. We have certain religious and moral imperatives to take care of our own citizens - including the poor, the elderly, the disabled and the mentally unstable.
If some of my fellow American conservatives relentlessly insist that America is a Christian nation (which it isn't), then whatever happened to Ephesians 4:32? You know, "Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you?" If anything, the current attitude of calling universal health coverage "communism" is Gluttony - wanting to constantly stuff your face, but never leaving anything for the disadvantaged segments of society. If we continue to call ourselves a Christian nation, then I think it is better that we start living to some of those ideals. That, and the fact that allowing our citizens to die from lack of medical attention is morally wrong.
4. Economies of scale inherently favor a single-payer system.
Any socioeconomic institution benefits from having a larger number of participants rather than few. Healthcare is no exception to this economic law.
5. A single-payer system would reduce the number of government personnel needed to administer it - thus keeping the government from expanding.
Even when accounting for population differences, Canada - which has had a single-payer system since 1984 - still has fewer government personnel administering the funds necessary to provide universal health coverage. Compare that to the US, where our patchwork system of private insurers, Medicare, Obamacare and other laws make it very unruly to administer - for coverage that still doesn't reach our most vulnerable citizens.
Because you sound very liberal.
Get real
