Is America's healthcare system inefficient?

Counterpoint

The health care system in the United States is the most advanced and expensive in the world. Many Americans are trying to promote a "free heath care" system to replace the current system but they fail to recognize that "free" health care isn't free at all.

With every action there is a consequence. If we switch to universal health care, or so-called "free health care," then who would pay for it? We would, by paying much higher taxes or enacting spending cuts in areas such as education.

According to an ABC News/Washington Post poll, most insured Americans are very satisfied with the quality of care, costs and coverage they receive.

Around 82 percent rated their current health coverage positively, while 91 percent were satisfied with care given to them after suffering a serious injury or illness and 86 percent were satisfied with their coverage.

Those who supported the idea of universal health care quickly changed their minds if it meant limiting their choices of doctors.

Many Americas don't understand why the costs are rising and what the money is being used for, so naturally they would rather not pay such high prices.  The U.S. is one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world, especially in medicine. It is necessary to have specialists in order to understand exactly what the problem is.

In Canada, the universal system forces patients to wait over six months for a routine pap smear and they often come to the U.S. or end up paying more to have their needs met.

By placing health care into the hands of the government, a system that is known for its red tape and sluggishness, one can only imagine how long it may take to have a simple procedure.

Dying or becoming seriously ill as a direct result of waiting to be tested and given treatment does not sound like a reasonable solution at all.

Another issue that may arise from a universal health care system is that people may become hypochondriacs, running to the doctor unnecessarily for every cut, cough and sneeze.

Not only would this waste the doctor's time but it would also take away time from doctors to care for people with more serious problems. This will also increase costs and force the government to raise taxes to meet the high costs of those visits.

The proposed system would force all Americans to pay the same regardless of the status of their health. This means a person who chain-smokes, drinks, overeats, or does drugs benefits from the taxes of healthy Americans who take care of themselves.

Americans who are uninsured are not left in the dark. There are non-profit organizations and government-run hospitals that provide medical services for them. Another plus is that it is against the law to refuse someone emergency care simply because they lack insurance or are an illegal immigrant.

Although costs are rising, people receive the most advanced care the U.S. has to offer, and although they may need to revise the current health care system, universal health care is not the solution.

Kara Ogushi is a fourth year print journalism major at CSULB.

 

Point

Today there are 40 million uninsured Americans, and millions more are under-insured. The goal is to find a way for these people to acquire the best possible health care at a reasonable cost. The problem is that Americans living without coverage are mostly unable to afford health care under the current system. Premiums have risen by an average of 11 percent per year for the last five years. With no commensurate rise in wages, it is no wonder that 16 percent of the population live without insurance.

The rise in health premiums has often been attributed to malpractice lawsuits. This assumption is disputed by the congressional budget office which said, "the evidence available…does not make a strong case that restricting malpractice liability would have a significant effect on economic efficiency." The private insurance system is extremely inefficient. The profit motive drives corporations to micro-manage their patients and compete against each other in wasteful marketing campaigns. These costs are not insignificant, and they don't exist in countries like Canada where everyone receives coverage. Furthermore, health is too important an issue to be left up to the insurers to decide who will receive coverage.

In 2002 health care costs rose to 15 percent of the gross domestic product, double the cost of countries that insure their entire populations. These expenditures are extremely harmful to every industry except the medical and pharmaceutical industries. A public health system could potentially cut insurance costs in half and could save businesses billions of dollars. One reason corporations cite for shutting down their American operations is the rising costs of health insurance.

President George W. Bush is fond of accusing his rival of supporting "socialized medicine" and big government. The allegation is false; it's a red herring. There isn't anything wrong with "big government," Bush is quite fond of it himself. We aren't supposed to actually look beyond the claim and examine what big government is, and what it can do. The alternative government health plan is corporate control. This is problematic because corporations aren't accountable to the public, they are only accountable to their shareholders.

What is better for America? Unaccountable corporate control with spiraling costs and wasteful inefficiencies, or government control where the people have at least a small say in the way that their health is administered?

Sterling Harris is a history major at CSULB.