Health care reform is not about right vs. left
In his column “Nationalized health care is doomed to fail” (May 13), Alex Pherson accuses the left of propagating myths about universal health care. The column, however, falls short of being an honest and persuasive piece, and instead settles into the familiar, regurgitated “myths” propagated by the right. Regardless of the political affiliations or ideologies, here are the stark realities of current American health care:
“¢bull; While America possesses highly advanced medical technology overall, the actual condition of medical facilities vary greatly. For many Americans, state-of-the-art medicine is as elusive as owning a private jet.
“¢bull; We have a severe shortage of primary care doctors. Only a small fraction of medical students pursue the field, while lucrative specializations draw away the majority of them. Why? Our current system rewards specialists performing procedures but offers few incentives for primary care physicians.
“¢bull; More than 1 million Americans file for bankruptcy each year due to medical bills. They are middle-class, college-educated, employed and insured people who thought they were safe until an illness or injury hit.
“¢bull; To point out one problem with our health insurance system ““ which has plenty ““ there is the paradox of employer-provided coverage. When a person can no longer work because of an illness, the coverage is lost along with the employment. In order to buy an individual plan, you have to pay an exorbitant premium. And it is nearly impossible to find coverage when the person has significant medical history ““ what insurance companies would call “pre-existing conditions.”
As long as health care is treated as just another business driven by profit motive, average Americans will continue to be pawns of the giant money-making machinery that is our health care industry. Too many have suffered and are now eager for a meaningful reform. Of course, it will have to be a concerted effort at multiple fronts ““ fiscal constraint, supply of medical professionals, minimizing wasteful bureaucracy and maximizing the efficiency. President Obama’s ambition to expand coverage is a good step forward.
I look forward to Pherson’s next installment. I hope to see an intellectually honest presentation that addresses reality, and less of the tiresome “right vs. left” mentality.
Yesol Kim
Fourth-year, biochemistry
Licensed vocational nurse
Columnist misinterprets the objective facts
America is the only modern, industrialized nation that has not yet embraced nationalized health care. President Obama realizes the importance of reforming our medical system toward the efficiency and fairness of a nationalized model.
Alex Pherson lays out the facts that obviously support this conclusion (“Nationalized health care is doomed to fail,” May 13), he just struggles with their interpretation. He states, “the U.S. already spends between four to six times per capita on health care (than) what Western European countries do.”
This statistic reeks of an inefficient system based on an insurance company middleman. A system in which common-sense preventative health care is neglected results in larger long-term costs.
Pherson writes that this medical expenditure as well as our tax burden will only increase as we expand “the provision of care to the uninsured.” This false assertion wildly misinterprets the facts; the countries that provide health care to everyone currently do so at a fraction of the cost because they have streamlined the medical system. If we reformed our system to include each citizen, we could save 24 percent on administrative costs alone, which is more than enough to cover the approximately 15 percent of Americans who are uninsured. In summary, with a revamping of our system will come massive savings and improved coverage.
Pherson attempts to trivialize the fate of our uninsured poor as a “myth propagated by the left.” This cold interpretation conveniently omits statistics attributing a staggering number of bankruptcies to medical bills that the uninsured are forced to pay out-of-pocket. He also seems to be unaware that our system forces these impoverished people to forego preventative care and treatment, which ultimately leads to sick poor people and a larger bill for society as a whole. Forty-six million people are still without coverage. How can we justify this fact as we continue to spend so much more on health care than the rest of the western world?
He attempts to justify this failing by declaring, “(In our system,) people have reaped the benefits of the best technology the world can offer.” These people he refers to are invariably the rich and the insured. This is not a liberal myth, it is an objective reality.
The article attempts to discredit Obama’s health care plan, saying it will cause “private insurance (to) disappear.” While this is not necessarily a terrible possibility, it is also untrue. Private insurance will still be available because Obama’s plan builds on the existing health care system and uses existing providers. These companies will be incorporated, and if outside private insurance companies are worthwhile, they will not be forced out of business, either, because the rich are always willing to pay a bit extra for a bit more.
People who live under universal health care may “grumble” about it, but here in the most prosperous nation on earth, people are going bankrupt because of their medical bills. The fact is, we cannot continue to support this bloated, inefficient system as it fails to provide for us all; we need change, and nationalized health care is the answer.
Kennan Cronen
Media relations director, Bruin Democrats