Pros, cons and possible solutions
Published: 2009-10-18 14:18:55
Author: Ken Clouston | Gillette News Record | October 5, 2009
No one can argue that we need to make some changes with health care in the United States. My question is: Are we really going to scrap our current health care system in favor of a government-run system? This being the same U.S. government that tries to run programs like Medicare, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Social Security? Are we really abandoning individual freedoms and a capitalistic industry in favor of a socialistic system?
I have tried to argue the points from both sides:
PROS
- Everyone in America would receive medical treatment. We live in a very wealthy and wasteful nation and should be able provide treatment to all.
- As a small business owner, the increasing cost of providing health insurance benefits to our employees becomes more expensive yearly. This cost would be eliminated or more evenly shared.
- No longer would medical professionals have to worry about different coding and insurance procedures that vary from one company to another. We could concentrate on taking care of our patients.
- The high cost of malpractice insurance would be eliminated. The cost of “defensive medicine” is $150 per month for each American family.
- People with preexisting conditions would have immediate access to health care coverage.
- People would be more apt to seek medical care immediately if it was “free.” This should help prevent some diseases or conditions from becoming so severe and expensive.
CONS
- Available health care options would be lessened and profit motives eliminated. There are more MRI units in Denver than in all of Canada. The reason being that currently in the U.S., an MRI unit is a revenue source. In a universal health care system, an MRI becomes a huge budget expense to purchase and operate. Many of the tests and procedures we are used to having quick access to will no longer be quickly available to us. Many medical procedures and services will be rationed or budgeted.
- “Free health care” is not free. The money will have to come from cuts somewhere else or from increased taxes.
- Loss of private industry jobs and increased government bureaucracy. We will see job losses and business closings among insurance companies, private hospitals and clinics. We also will have created probably the largest U.S. government agency with universal health care.
- Less efficient and lower quality care. Let us be honest, if people are paid the same whether they do an average job or an exceptional job, over time most people do what they need to do to get by. In the current competitive health care system, those that work the hardest and provide the best services are the companies and hospitals that survive and grow.
Full story
Published: 2009-10-18 14:18:55
Author: Ken Clouston | Gillette News Record | October 5, 2009
No one can argue that we need to make some changes with health care in the United States. My question is: Are we really going to scrap our current health care system in favor of a government-run system? This being the same U.S. government that tries to run programs like Medicare, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Social Security? Are we really abandoning individual freedoms and a capitalistic industry in favor of a socialistic system?
I have tried to argue the points from both sides:
PROS
- Everyone in America would receive medical treatment. We live in a very wealthy and wasteful nation and should be able provide treatment to all.
- As a small business owner, the increasing cost of providing health insurance benefits to our employees becomes more expensive yearly. This cost would be eliminated or more evenly shared.
- No longer would medical professionals have to worry about different coding and insurance procedures that vary from one company to another. We could concentrate on taking care of our patients.
- The high cost of malpractice insurance would be eliminated. The cost of “defensive medicine” is $150 per month for each American family.
- People with preexisting conditions would have immediate access to health care coverage.
- People would be more apt to seek medical care immediately if it was “free.” This should help prevent some diseases or conditions from becoming so severe and expensive.
CONS
- Available health care options would be lessened and profit motives eliminated. There are more MRI units in Denver than in all of Canada. The reason being that currently in the U.S., an MRI unit is a revenue source. In a universal health care system, an MRI becomes a huge budget expense to purchase and operate. Many of the tests and procedures we are used to having quick access to will no longer be quickly available to us. Many medical procedures and services will be rationed or budgeted.
- “Free health care” is not free. The money will have to come from cuts somewhere else or from increased taxes.
- Loss of private industry jobs and increased government bureaucracy. We will see job losses and business closings among insurance companies, private hospitals and clinics. We also will have created probably the largest U.S. government agency with universal health care.
- Less efficient and lower quality care. Let us be honest, if people are paid the same whether they do an average job or an exceptional job, over time most people do what they need to do to get by. In the current competitive health care system, those that work the hardest and provide the best services are the companies and hospitals that survive and grow.
Full story