Where ambitious young professionals connect and grow

Already a member?

Click here to login

Welcome to Brazen Careerist!

Emily Ma is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Emily Ma and other professionals just like you. Learn more.

  
Posted On 06.09.09

This is a follow-up to my series last year, Universal Healthcare Week.  My posts on the pros and cons of a universal health care system continue to be popular pages on Weakonomics so I thought I’d touch on the subject again.  For a quick refresh, universal health care is a system of providing health coverage for any and all willing participants.  This is usually through a government program, funded by taxes.  The United States is the only developed country in the world to not have a universal health care system for its citizens.  Medicaid and Medicare do not count because they target a select group of citizens.  Many people support universal health care claiming it is a birthright and everyone should have access to care.

It is important to note the distinction between universal health care and socialized medicine before we proceed.  Many people confuse the terms.  Under universal health care hospitals, doctors, drug companies, nurses, dentists, etc can all remain independent.  They can be for-profit or non-profit.  In socialized medicine the whole industry is the government.  So if you wanted to be a doctor, you would work for the government.

So let’s dig into the pros and cons of universal health care, starting with the pros.

Pros of Universal Health Care:

If you lost your job next week your insurance would likely go with it.  Excluding temporary programs like COBRA, losing your job basically means losing your health insurance too.  Sure you can buy your own, but that can get expensive and there are often holes in the policy than with employer provided health insurance.  Under a universal system, you don’t have to worry.  Imagine you had to pay each month for access to use the police.  If you lost your job and couldn’t afford the police bill and called 911, you wouldn’t get service.  That sure sounds awful.  The most fundamental underlying basis of universal health care is the fact that in the system, you don’t have to worry about not being covered.

The United States spends more on health care as a percentage of GDP than any other developed nation.  Countries that have some kind of universal coverage generally spend less.  This is because the costs of a universal system are less than private.  Drugs can be purchased in greater bulk, prices for services can be negotiated at a lower rate due to the larger pool, and a large singular system would reduce the overhead involved in processing insurance and medical services.

Furthermore we already have laws in the US that require emergency rooms to see patients even if they don’t have any insurance.  This costs the hospital money which they pass on to consumers and insurance companies.  Under a universal health care system those that normally go without insurance would now be required to pay into it in the form of taxes.  The distributed cost would bring down the personal expenses of those that already pay for insurance.  Those that might object to forced taxation should know this is no different than the shared costs of road construction, school funding, or space exploration.

That all sounds pretty good right?  You can take your insurance from job to job or even be covered if you lose your job, the total cost for health coverage would decline, and the actual out of pocket expenses you pay would also go down.  But not so fast.  We’re only looking at this farm from the other side of the fence.  Let’s walk on over and find out exactly what life is like with universal health care.  To Europe!

Cons of Universal Health Care:

Competition rocks.  Competition fosters innovation.  There is a reason pharmaceuticals and biotechnology are two of the fastest growing industries in the United States.  There is some serious money to be made with a breakthrough product.  Universal health care funded by the government would really hold back the potential for new medical breakthroughs because the government would insist on sharing the breakthrough, to the detriment of the company’s profits.  This would end up with these companies leaving the industry.  No profit to be made, no reason to invest.  Competition in the medical community has done much to help support the American economy over the past couple of decades.  So much so that our GDP growth outpaces other developed countries with universal health care systems.

Take a closer look at the universal healthcare programs in other countries and you’ll find not everything is so great.  In Canada, wait times to see specialists have sent many people with the funds to private care.  I’m pulling statistics here, but it takes 22 months for residents of Saskatchewan to get an MRI.  57% of Canadians report having to wait a month just to see a specialist.  As a result long wait times and certain services not covered in the national plan many citizens in universal health care provided countries must still obtain private insurance.  That negates the whole purpose of a universal system because many people would opt out of getting private insurance creating the same problem the US currently faces.

Perhaps the most important disadvantage of universal health care is the fact that the government would be in charge.  Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are run by the government. Both of these programs are on track to bankrupt themselves.  Bloated bureaucracies are sort of an American icon.  We set up massive social welfare programs and they are abused by citizens and politicians alike.  If a US universal healthcare plan were to generate a surplus, our idiot government would then borrow from it and ruin the whole system from everyone.  The simple fact is that our government can’t be trusted to handle social programs.

These aren’t all the pros and cons of universal health care but it’s enough to get you started.  Here are a couple of interesting facts and thoughts of note about universal healthcare:

  • Almost 59% of the US health care system is already publicly financed through taxes and subsidies.
  • It’s unfair for a parent to choose not to cover a child.  The child should have coverage.
  • A commonly cited statistic shows the quality of health in the United States lags behind countries with universal health care, however the study used biased criteria and results are manipulated to make it look worse than it actually is.
  • The most recent opinion polls of doctors in the US show the majority support a universal system.
  • The American Medical Association (the largest of its kind) more broadly supports reform of the current system.
  • “Health Care” and “Healthcare” are both widely accepted terms.  This author prefers the latter, but has used both in this post.

What could universal healthcare in the United States look like?
There are a number of methods to implement universal health care.  You can collect taxes from everyone, including businesses; this is how we support Medicare.  This would provide blanket coverage to anyone and everyone and you would only need to prove you’re a citizen to get care.  Another method would be for the government to offer a national policy.  If you wish to participate you can opt-in, then your premium would be deducted from your paycheck just like a normal tax.

In the united states we would probably tax everyone.  It is conceivable that we would be taxed as a percentage of income, instead of a flat rate.  This could negatively impact higher income earners because they would pay more into the system than they would get out.  In order for a universal system to work this would likely be the implemented method.  Perhaps it could be a fixed percentage up to a certain income level, at which it either curbs or cuts off.  A system like this would best benefit lower income families and families with more children than average.  The result would be that these demographics would get more out of the system than they pay in, with folks without children and higher income earners getting the short end of the stick.  They would however get a stick.

We could also use a system where everyone pays in and gets at least something out of it.  It could be the most basic coverage, perhaps all children up to 18 covered and all adults getting just simple coverage.  This could perhaps cover basic dental and eye, as well as a yearly check-up covering all the normal tests someone would get at their particular age.  Adults could purchase additional coverage through the government and it would be deducted from their paycheck, or they could use a private insurer to supplement the basic care.

The possibilities are endless, just about anyone could come up with a plan, it’s just a matter of which one would be the most useful and provided the greatest coverage per dollar.

Finally, what does The Weakonomist think about universal healthcare?
The universal healthcare argument almost always excludes one key point - portability.  Many folks talk about universal care as either you’re in or you’re out.  Half of the people in the United States (as conducted by a poll of the most reliable sources - 4 people in my office) just want to be able to take their insurance with them from job to job.  Let’s say I left my employer to go work for a small bank in town.  That small bank requires 90 days of service before benefits kick in.  This means that I go three months without having insurance!

Like my car insurance or my Roth IRA, I’d like to simply take my health insurance with me wherever I go.  I will pay the full price, and a company (as a part of my benefits package) could offer to pay for some or all of my coverage.  When I leave the company they stop paying.  I have to pay it all on my own again or until I find another company that would help me pay for it.  Companies could be incented to help by making this contribution a tax deduction.

At this point I still don’t believe a universal system is the best way to go.  I really want to just take it with me wherever I go, and get some big time reform and modernization to the medical system. Gun to my head with only two options though, I’ll take universal health care over what we’ve got right now.

At least 1% of the people reading this will care what I think, but for the most part my opinion doesn’t matter.  Educate yourself, form your own opinion.  I know I’ve got some readers with more information out there, please share it.  This is not a forum for debate, but merely a quest for statistics and facts.

Share and Enjoy:

Comments

Kimberley
06.09.09

I'd like to see where you get the data that indicates that it takes nearly 2 years to get an MRI in Saskatchewan.

cooper
06.09.09

There are some issues with Canadian health care, but what most people fail to point out is that not all of the countries who fare better then us in outcome based studies use that model, there are different models, some extremely successful, to take the least successful is rather disingenuous. The methodology WHO uses is the standard,CATO on the other hand is an ideological institute in and of itself so there is no surprise in their report.

It is the very large GDP figures which should be worrisome or should have been a warning years ago. From what I've read, many health care economists, back in the early 90's, thought the health care industry was going to start to increase their efficiency but what happened instead is administrative fees started to climb and the industry lobbyists won the day, there are now a good number of them
who, despite their love of the free markets, have thought for some time that looking at how medicare is run - better than we have been lead to believe - it would be desirable to have them run health care.

06.09.09

I have no desire for the government to run yet another massive program. Every department, agency, and most programs have so much waste that it becomes a burden rather than a benefit. I agree that the idea of universal health care run by the government makes sense if the government was efficient and not corrupt. Unfortunately that's not the case. Do we really want to have the government deciding which procedures we can receive when they have bankrupted Social Security and probably run Medicare into the ground as well? These two programs are the lynchpin of retirement for many Americans and in all likely hood, Gen Y will never get to see its promised benefits even though we are paying almost 7.65% of our income for it.

Instead I would like to propose a hybrid model. We should create a health care system where everyone is required to get health care, but from private providers. Now this may seem exactly like the old system, but I would throw in a twist. We should make health care exactly like auto insurance: individuals pay an annual deductible for their care, which would encourage people to choose doctors who don't overcharge, and the insurance companies pay for disastrous problems like cancer, surgery, etc. This model has worked exceptionally well in the auto industry, and I do not see why it would not be applicable to health care as well. For those who are less fortunate, the government could even support them with a tax rebate to pay for the annual cost health care. This system would reduce costs, keep government waste out of the system, encourage people to choose competent/cost effective doctors, and provide a way for low income people to receive health benefits.

06.10.09

I'm glad you wrote about this. I'm all for any steps that make health care coverage less expensive without losing quality. This platform was shared by Obama and Hillary during the campaign. However, I am weary about universal health care in our country. There are loop holes in everything. I just wanted to point out I'm glad someone argued the pros and cons of universal health care. We know this will take some time to plan and take effect.

the weakonomist
06.10.09

Kimberly,

Blogs do give us somewhat a bit of freedom to not cite sources, but here you go...

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/170/5/776-a

Kimberley
06.11.09

Phillip - thank you for providing your source - even if it was an article that was printed 5 years ago. There have been a lot of changes in Saskatchewan in the past 5 years: a new government and a booming economy are 2 examples.

I strongly doubt that anyone is waiting 22 months for an MRI. Also, what that article did not mention is that when Saskatchewan does not have the ability to provide treatment, patients are sent to neighbouring provinces for treatment or diagnosis. If they choose not to go, then they're wait would be longer.

I'm glad you brought up the topic of universal health care in the US. Like I said, Canada's system is far from perfect. You should look into Sweden's system and see if it would be more to your liking.

Anonymous
06.15.09

what is bear meat composed of?

Anonymous
06.24.09

bear

Anonymous
07.01.09

Universal health care has to be one of the worst ideas the Government is tossing around right now. In what why does a program run by the government sound like a good idea. Lets look at the other government run programs that don't run effeciently. Fannie Mae and Mac, Social Security, Medicare, to name a few.

The general arguement for Universal health is that it will cost less. But what no one considers is where the money comes from to keep those costs down. Either one of two things is going to happen. Taxes will go up to help pay for it or spending in other departments(like education) will be cut. Does that really sound like an effective way to run a program? Face the reality, universal health is not the solution.

wronginfo
08.01.09

I have several issues with H.R.3200. I listened to the interviews with Betsy McGaughey and checked some of her concerns in the bill. One provision is, if we leave our present plan we must find an equal one or go where the government chooses. This provision alone could lead to gradually taking current insurance companies out of the equation and leaving everyone except congress at big brothers mercy. How long would private insurance be able to stay in business? UNACCEPTABLE. Unless any national healthcare plan includes every member of Congress and the president when he leaves office, the restrictions on the rest of us are deplorable. Some of the provisions remind me of Hitler's tactics. Why is Congress excluding themselves? I WANT AN ANSWER TO THIS. I will support no national healthcare unless Congress is put into the same pot as the rest of us and all provisions apply to them too. If this is enacted as is and Ted Kennedy and I were both diagnosed with brain cancer, I am expendable but he can, unrestricted, get the best care and treatment available if that is what he desires. Why does Congress feel they are above the rest of us? You are our employees and one way or another we are paying for your "Great Medical Care" (Obama quote). The costs of including illegals in the bill not only raises the cost, but lowers the treatment that the rest of us will get. They came here knowing full well that they could be sent back, but because our great government turned their back on laws regarding this, the rest of us and our families will have to pay for it for God knows how long. Congress passed 2 bailouts with little or no checks and balances or accountability, allows 'bridges to nowhere' to be tacked onto legitimate legislation and caves in to the lobbyists. I could go on forever and have in another email, in which I addressed several issues I wanted answers to, but received back, months later, a form letter that did not address even one of them. It only berated George Bush for all that is wrong. I was not that happy with Mr. Bush, but much of what happened during his administration had it's seeds planted decades ago and unfortunately for him all came to a head in his administration. Congress passes the legislation not the president. His sole powers are few. Iraq was not Pearl Harbor, there was ample time to look deeply into what was really going on over there, but Bush gets all of the blame. Healthcare for the 15 percent who are uninsured could more than be taken care of by removing the waste and corruption in our government.
Neither I nor any of my friends support what has been done so far, but we all understand why so many are for it. They have lost there jobs and health insurance or have never had insurance and are mainly looking at something to help them, but this plan in the long run is not the answer and they are not fully understanding what is in it. The people that I know who are in favor of it do not even want to listen to the details, they just want insurance. You can't be listening to all of your constituents. The reported percentages of people for and against indicate more against than for. Thank God I will not be in this world much longer, but my family will and I am so sad at what we are leaving them. The country that I so dearly loved is no longer there for them.

10.13.10

pharmacy fridge - MidMeds Medical Supplies, UKs leading supplier to the Primary Care market of Supplies, Consumables, Equipment and Surgical instruments.

Lose weight naturally fast - Fasting Weightloss Health Retreat From $45 day Since 1997 Beachfront

HIV test - std test london, hiv test and testing, private doctors in the City of london and its Harley street clinic. Offering std and HIV tests, efficient confidential service.

lose weight - NO Dieting, Exercises, Pills, Surgery or EFFORT needed. 14lb loss in 4 weeks Guaranteed.

Gym Membership Milton Keynes - We’re home to some of Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire’s best equipped, most friendly and affordable health, leisure, sports and arts facilities.

Nails Marlow - Luxury Salon in Central Marlow. Services Include Waxing (inc. Hot Wax), Nails, St Tropez Tans, Massage.

11.23.10

I’ve done quite a bit of research on this topic buy carisoprodol… not as much as I could but still FAR more than the average American has. My take is this (please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong); in regards to cost our current system is set up so the doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies all make a profit. With a national system the profit and wealth distribution will change, one of the profit making middle men will be eliminated and be replaced with a non profit entity (the US government). This is just common sense in my mind… if I buy a product from a manufacturer (which I do) I then sell it to the retailer and then they sell it to the consumer this creates two middle men (the wholesaler and the retailer). If I were to change my business structure to a non profit and pass on the savings to the retailer they could then charge less and still make the same amount of profit Buy Erectile Dysfunction medicine. Simple economics right? I know this is over simplifying the situation, it might take 30 pages to cover all the details but in essence am I right or wrong?

01.06.11

This is a good post. This post give truly quality information.I'm definitely going to look into it.Really very useful tips are provided here.thank you so much.Keep up the good works. VigRX Plus Review - The Best Male Enhancement Supplement

01.11.11

Excellent article it pointed out a number of issues i wasn't aware of and has given me a lot of foof for thought. Blinds.

01.19.11

Thanks for the great article here. It is interesting for me to read some posts which were written before health care reform was approved. I must say that I can't really understand those people who are or were against health care reform. It will bring us many advantages! First of all there will be more insured people in our country. Secondly there will be more cheaper medications. Moreover we will be able to use more professional and efficient health care services. Nowadays there are many unprofessional doctors working in our hospitals. Some of them don't even have their cna certification exam passed. It is a real craziness. I just hope that this historical reform will change everything. Let's hope that it will. Thanks one more time for the great article and keep posting such nice ones in the nearest future too.

Got Something To Say?

Got Something To Say?

You Must Be Logged In To Comment
Not a Member? Brazen Careerist is a career management tool for next-generation professionals. Set up a free account today to comment on this post and start sharing your ideas. Learn more.

Virtual Events

Schedule an Event

Ask A Citi Recruiter Zone

Q: Hi Amy, me again. l applied IT business analyst in ... (More...)
A: Janna, I have contacted the Recruiter for you. (More...)

Jobs

  • Page 1 of 3
Business Analyst
Mossville - ATS
Deployable Full Motion Video TS/SCI Required
Manassas - General Dynamics Information Technology
Sales Assistant Sales Associate 1 Ann Arbor MI
Ann Arbor - Citi
Tampa Customer Contact Representatives (Customer Service) Home Agent
Tampa - Citi
Sales Associate
Various - Cellular Sales

Employer? Post a job