My partner and I stabilized her as best we could in the field -- placing oxygen on her, initiating intravenous access, placing her on a heart monitor and giving her medication--, but this woman needed a doctor, and quickly. As I began to transfer her to the ambulance cot, I heard her gasp: “Please…I…am…okay…I…don’t…want to…go to…the hosp…ital. ” Upon further questioning and investigating, we discovered she was without health insurance and the necessary emergency room visit would place her thousands of dollars in debt. Twenty minutes later, after a painstaking discussion with the patient, and a phone call to the emergency room doctor, the patient consented to be transported to the hospital.
En route to the hospital, the woman stopped breathing. Her airway had closed so tightly it was almost impossible to place a breathing tube in her throat to breathe for her. After we got her somewhat stabilized, it hit me that if we had left her at home -- without transporting her to the hospital -- she would have died. Although this emergency room visit cost her thousands of dollars, it saved her life.
There are 47 million uninsured citizens in America, forced daily to make a decision to buy groceries or to seek medical care for illness or injury. The social and economic costs of these uninsured fellow citizens is staggering. Americans should not be forced to make that decision. Universal healthcare coverage for American citizens will have a positive impact by a two faceted approach. The economy will benefit by the more effective use of the budget and through the early detection and prevention of costly pandemics . Universal health care will also greatly improve the quality of lives of fellow Americans.
Before discussing where healthcare in America should go, I must first establish an understanding of our present-day healthcare system. Currently, there are two methods of receiving healthcare insurance: government-funded insurance such as Medicare and Medicaid and private insurance coverage usually covered by employers. Medicare is a government-funded program available to individuals 65 years of age and older, and certain disabled citizens. Medicare is funded by federal income taxes shared by the employee and employer along with premiums paid by certain members.
Medicaid is available to low-income and disabled citizens, with mandatory coverage of “very poor pregnant women, children, elderly, disabled, and parents” (Chao 2). Both the state and federal governments pay for Medicaid through taxes.
The private sector is paid for by either the individual or by the employer as part of a package of benefits. These programs still leave many citizens with out insurance or under-insured. People either make too much to be considered for Medicaid or are too young to qualify for Medicare. The problem then with the private sector is under-insurance, not having enough coverage for the health problems they have. Universal health coverage will solve the problem of people not being able to receive benefits or receiving too little coverage.
Universal health care is a more efficient method of spending money on healthcare. One area that would be greatly impacted is the Medicare budget. In 2008 the total benefit outlay for Medicare is $454 billion. The cost of providing universal coverage would be at least $34-$69 billion which is significantly less than the amount spent currently only on Medicare. Inpatient costs account for 28.5% of that budget. There would be more than 1 million fewer hospital admissions and readmissions per year saving more than $7 billion per year of Medicare costs (Health 6) with a universal health care system in place. Just looking at hospital admissions universal coverage will save a significant amount of money.
With this reduction in overall costs come some compromises. Cost control measures will be taken in order to keep the budget within reasonable means. Dr. Kenneth Thorpe has studied four different methods of cost control (See fig. 1). The table shows that by adapting the programs we already have in place like Medicare and Medicaid we can save a significant amount of money. Changing the income level to better-fit lower-income families, more citizens would be covered by insurance than are currently covered. By creating an entirely new system that would be publically funded, we could save just over a trillion dollars over the next ten years. There are many different studies and possibilities out there for a health care reform. What is important to understand though is that the step toward universal health care is a necessary change regardless how we go about it.
The economical impact of influenza pandemic was studied by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The results showed that it would cost $71.3 to $166.5 billion not accounting for any disruptions to commerce. The vaccine costs around $21 per dose, but that is $21 most families would rather spend on food or paying for utilities. Most uninsured citizens do not receive the influenza vaccine meaning that if a pandemic were to occur, the people who were not immunized against the illness would contribute to the spread. The rippled affect of not receiving a $21 vaccine is detrimental to the economy (Meltzer 1). With universal coverage, more families will be able to afford immunizations. The simple act of providing immunizations to all citizens can save a significant amount of money and save lives.
Opponents of universal healthcare have insignificant points compared to the benefits of providing coverage to all. Saving lives and improving the quality of lives should outweigh the opponents’ beliefs. Opponents claim that with universal health care, coverage will be limited as part of the cost control measures that would be taken. The opponents claim that this could be detrimental to the health of citizens. They also claim that healthy people will be paying for people who are not healthy, and that the long-term budget and economic impact is unknown, comparing it to social security.
With the entire nation now wanting to see a doctor to take care of their problems, there would be an increase in spending if cost control measures were not taken. Already discussed in Dr. Thorpe’s study, opponents believe that these cost control measures will be detrimental to the overall health of the citizens. Elective surgeries such as breast implants and laser eye surgery would not be covered.
Decisions have to be made as to what should be covered in order to keep the costs of universal health care reasonable. It is unlikely that these measures would be harmful in any way because only elective surgeries would be scrutinized and possibly not covered. Essential surgeries will still be covered, although, at this time it is unclear who will decide what is essential and what is not. Just because cost control measures will be taken, it should not outweigh the benefits and improvements to the lives of fellow Americans that universal coverage has.
Healthy people will have to pay for the citizens who have problems related to poor maintenance of their health and bodies. Since universal coverage will most likely be covered by taxes, people who are healthy are paying the same amount as people who do not take care of themselves. That is currently how the system works though, whether it be privately funded insurance or through the government programs. We all pay the same percentage of tax to Medicare and if those insured through private companies pay to insure people with cancer caused by smoking cigarettes. There is no validity behind these claims, regardless; cost should not be a big enough issue to outweigh the lives of our fellow man.
Social security is a well-known program that has been in place since 1935 to provide a social insurance when it was enacted. Now, over seventy years later, the program has not changed. People see this as a right and expect it to always be there regardless of the costs it has on the economy. Opponents to universal healthcare fear the same results as what we are seeing now with social security. There is little chance of politicians being able to change the program. This fear, although real, should not play a role in the decision to better the lives of our fellow humans.
Universal health care is a necessary step this country needs to take to ensure all Americans can receive the necessary medical care. The economic benefits far outweigh the measures that will be taken and the benefits to Americans are too numerous to count. Saving over one trillion dollars over ten years, improving the quality of lives, preventing an influenza pandemic, these are just a few of the benefits Universal health care will provide and is worth any negatives there may be.
Works Cited
Chua, Kao-Ping. "Overview of the U.S. Health Care System." American Medical Student Association (2006): 1-6.
Foreman, Judy. "High Medical Bills Don't Have to Lead to Bankruptcy." The Boston Globe 22 Feb 2005 1-2. 15 April 2008
"Health Policy Reform: Beyond the 2008 Elections." The Columbia Journalism Review 3.08(2008): 1-12.
Meltzer, Martin. United States. Centers for Disease Control. The Economic Impact of Pandemic Influenza in the United States: Priorities for Intervention. Atlanta, GA: 2000.
Moffit, Robert, and Reidl, Brian. "Medicare's Deepening Financial Crisis: The High Price of Fiscal Irresponsibility." The Heritage Foundation 174024 March 2004 1. 14 April 2008
