Both Got It Wrong

There is an obvious, ever-growing – and increasingly formidable – need to reform the American healthcare system. The problem is that neither Sens. Obama nor Mccain has the solution – in fact, neither party has even come close. Instead, the American people are left with a half-assed, close-minded single-payer system that operates as an institutional “reform” that does little but put a band-aid on a deep flesh wound. While this may be better than no action at all, it is a failure with regard to the preservation of market capitalism in the health-care system. It is, though, a step in the right direction.
The main issue at hand is the question of how our government will subsidize health-care for the masses. To achieve “universal coverage” – as is the idea behind a single payer system – would require either having the government provide health insurance to everyone or forcing the citizens to buy it. But, because the government is infamous for doing a poor job of improving quality or efficiency, a single-payer system is undesirable. Further, a member of a free society – like ours – should have the right to refuse healthcare. In other words, what right should the government have in your personal medical affairs? Anyone should have the right to refuse forced cooperation in a governmental program. It may be in the interest, for example, for one to spend the funds afforded towards healthcare on other economic ventures – and the government should not have the right to influence individual economic decisions. Also, under a “universal system”, the cost of healthcare is transferred from the individual to the taxpayer – which, also, begs the question of fairness…Is it fair to force a perfectly healthy person to pay for another’s insurance needs? No.
Even without a “universal healthcare” system, there still lives the main principle behind the reform: the idea that health-care policy should focus on making health care of an “ever-increasing quality available to an ever-increasing number of people”. But, how does the government afford health-care in this country aside from using a single-payer system? Simple -- instead of using such a static and unflexible “universal model”, the government should maximize its options with regard to funding of health-care reform.
If the government desires to subsidize health-care, why should it be limited to subsidizing the program through a single-payer system? In other words, why doesn’t the government consider using cash, vouchers, insurance, public clinics and hospitals, uncompensated care payments or even tax exemptions to promote the expansion of health-care for the approximately 47 million uninsured Americans?
With this vast array of options, one can hope that the nation will avoid the problems of a single-payer system – as seen in Massachusetts – while still protecting the principles of our democratic-capitalist nation. A fine compromise.
Massachusetts learned – after implementing a state-wide, single-payer medical care system – that the program still cannot incorporate a portion of the population that is simply too poor to fit into the system. It is a sad reality about our capitalist democracy: there is always a population that is too poor to afford incorporation into the program. This is a direct example of the need for different forms of subsidies for the low-income class. And, through the use of multiple means of subsidizing health-care, the government can engage a growing social issue and, at the same time, maintain a competitive health-care market.
Simply put, it is becoming more and more necessary for the state to extend its arm of influence into the healthcare industry, but government must not do so through a single-payer insurance program has pitfalls and is limited in its scope of coverage. It is time for the American Congress to start thinking outside the box and act in the interests of the American people, not the interests of the health-care industry.