Assignment 16 Cate Clay

            Here’s a question for each of you. Let’s say you have the choice between spending roughly $10,000 each year on lower quality healthcare or spending $0 a year on higher quality healthcare. What do you choose?

I think it is safe to say that you would all go with the second option: better care, zero cost. Unfortunately, as citizens of the United States, we do not have this option. Instead, each of us spends an average of $9,956 annually on healthcare. And what do we get in return? Healthcare quality that consistently ranks worst among the world’s industrialized nations. All of the nations that rank ahead of us have one thing in common: universal healthcare.

            Under universal healthcare coverage, all legal residents of a given area receive healthcare. According to the World Health Organization, universal healthcare embodies three objectives: equity in access to healthcare, sufficient quality of health services, and protection from financial hardship. One type of universal healthcare is single-payer, in which a single entity, usually the government, provides the financing for healthcare, but the actual care remains in private hands.

            Americans are becoming increasingly interested in the implementation of single-payer healthcare in the United States due to the high number of uninsured individuals that remain even after the Affordable Care Act’s passage in 2010. Although the act provides the means for more low-income citizens to obtain health insurance, 27.6 million citizens remain uninsured and, according to the 2016 National Health Interview Survey, 45% of these citizens say they are uninsured because the cost of coverage is too high. Under the act, a portion of these uninsured are qualified to receive financial assistance from the government for health insurance, but many are not eligible for subsidized coverage and are responsible for paying for their healthcare even though they do not have the means to do so. A new system is necessary to take the Affordable Care Act a step further and ensure that all Americans are insured. That system is single-payer healthcare.  

You may be wondering how the United States would be able to afford a system in which the government essentially pays for the healthcare of all citizens. After all, Politifact claims that the estimated price of the system ranges from $2.4-2.8 trillion. But estimates like this one are deceiving, when considering the various facets of healthcare in which expenses will be cut with the implementation of this system.

As Mark Vinkenes, former chief of the Office of Management and Budget Medicare Branch, explains, private health insurance has much higher administrative costs than government-provided Medicare. Hospitals are forced to have more insurance billing and reimbursement clerks than beds. Under a single-payer healthcare system, hospitals and doctors’ offices would not need to allot such a significant portion of their budgets to handling issues with private insurers because the government would be the sole insurer. In addition, countries with single-payer healthcare have found that large government entities are able to better negotiate with service providers, leading to lower priced health services across the board. Thus, while single-payer healthcare may increase the amount that the government currently pays on healthcare, the amount spent on healthcare overall would decrease.

While cost is a prevalent concern expressed about single-payer healthcare in the United States, an additional source of opposition to the system stems from interest group influence. The efforts of wealthy and powerful interest groups have been a leading force in blocking opportunities for the United States to catch up to all of the world’s other industrialized nations and implement universal healthcare. Texas A&M Health Science Professor Timothy Callaghan says that nearly $1.2 billion were spent in lobbying against the Affordable Care Act in 2009 alone. The insurance industry was responsible for $100 million of this sum, as they are keen on private insurers maintaining their pivotal position in American healthcare. Their opposition is even stronger and more unyielding when it comes to single-payer healthcare, as the system’s implementation would significantly diminish the importance of private insurance in the United States. It is not surprising that the private entities that profit most off the current American healthcare system do not want to see any changes to that system, even if it would mean better healthcare for all Americans. We cannot continue to let these groups decide what quality healthcare our citizens deserve.  

In shaping the future of America’s healthcare, the government must focus on what is best for every American, not just the select few who benefit from the private insurance industry. According to a Harvard University study, about 62% of all individual bankruptcies in the United States are related to medical expenses, meaning healthcare is the number one cause of such filings. With single-payer healthcare, Americans would no longer be forced to pay for the high, unexpected costs that accompany medical emergencies. Americans would receive all medically necessary services without having to pay out of their own pocket. This would include doctor’s visits, preventative treatment, hospitalizations, mental healthcare, and prescription drugs. Single-payer health care could end bankruptcies caused by medical expenses. This would allow Americans to spend the money they previously spent on healthcare on other products, which would improve the American economy as a whole.

We cannot put this off any longer. It is time that our government recognizes that healthcare is a basic human right that every American, no matter their financial means, is entitled to. The United States has always led the world, whether it was in human rights, scientific discoveries, or technological innovation. Why should we settle for any less in healthcare?