It seems that when friends get together for coffee, lunch, or whatever, they often end up resolving all the major problems of the day.
Such was the case recently when a group of three got together for lunch and worked out the problem of universal healthcare.
It’s obvious that Congress can’t resolve the problem; it’s tried for decades and still cannot come up with a reasonable solution. Of course, Congress is torn between trying to address the concerns of the general public and the health-related factions that pour huge sums into their re-election campaigns and then seek resolutions favorable to them alone.
But when three individuals can get together, even if they have opposing political affiliations, and consider only what is beneficial for the most people, solutions come flooding out.
And so it was recently, as we discussed the problem of the healthcare system in the United States.
First, it should be noted that more than 70 countries worldwide have some form of universal healthcare. With that many examples to examine, it should be fairly easy to identify what is working well and what needs tweaking, and then apply that knowledge to make a newly formed healthcare system even better.
Even though we did not have access to information that would have allowed us to examine in detail 70 other universal healthcare systems, our solution seemed relatively simple and at least a start.
Our summation consisted of simply providing healthcare to every American citizen through a government-controlled program, cutting out the middlemen of private insurers (remember, the ones who are throwing vast amounts of money at legislators?)
Of course, we all know that many government operations tend to function perfunctorily, and often, not very efficiently. But there are also many things that the government does well, considering the complexities of scale, so it seems very likely that a government-run universal healthcare system could be operated at least as well as the multi-tiered system now in place to provide health care for Americans.
The cost of government-run universal healthcare will be enormous. There is no question about that. But healthcare costs in America are already enormous, with much of the burden attributed to the complex system we now operate under. One premise is that a single-payer system would not only simplify the system, making it easier for the providers, but also provide a more constant and secure system.
The enormous cost of the proposed system would be funded with higher personal taxes.
Oh no! Higher taxes!
Look at it this way. Suppose you and your employer each contribute to a healthcare system. If those same funds were to go to a government-funded system, the individual would be no worse off in terms of the amounts they contribute. And since the routinely healthy individuals would be contributing the same as those with health issues, the fund would be broad-based, which is exactly what private health insurers do now.
It would seem that individuals would be far better off knowing that, should they suffer a major health issue with substantial co-pays, they could receive care without question and without those additional costs.
And even if an individual’s personal income tax were to rise modestly, that would surely be better than the potential large sums they would face when their private health insurance covers only a small portion of their costs.
There are obviously several pros and cons to a universal healthcare system. If reasonable people can get together to minimize the cons, this country could devise a system that works effectively, efficiently, and beneficially for all Americans.
And as for the current “let’s throw something against the wall and see what sticks” proposal of giving every American a $2,000 health benefit, one can only surmise that it might work pretty well for someone who never has to deal with a major health crisis. But, as happened to an acquaintance who recently underwent cancer treatment that cost over $250,000, the extra $248,000 that would have had to come out of their pocket would have consumed everything they owned and still left them in debt.
