Universal Health Coverage

The future of health care in this country and how it will be payed for is turning out to be a key issue in this year's presidential campaign. Both surviving Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have expressed the goal of universal health insurance coverage for Americans, while presumptive Republican nominee John McCain wants more coverage, but from the perspective of encouraging market forces in the private sector with minimal government intervention. Critics of universal health care often dub it "socialized medicine" and refer to Canada and countries overseas with that type of system and its perceived drawbacks. Also, many have expressed resentment over some getting the coverage at the expense of others' labors.

In the first place, just because other countries have instituted policies that transferred either ownership or management of their health care systems to the state, this does not automatically translate to how the United States would implement a universal health care system. Our preferred way of doing things here is for the government to come into business relationships with private companies to accomplish its ends. Our space and defense programs are supplied through contracts made with corporations that design, make, and sell the needed technology. Our wonderful interstate highway system has been built and is being maintained by a contractual relationship with private companies. And similarly, our health care system can also be maintained around a policy of public/private business partnership. For the second objection, hard-working citizens are already paying the bills of those unable to pay through lack of insurance by incurring larger medical bills. And I'd like to add a couple of other points to the discussion.

Lately, there has been a movement of some U.S.-based companies from American to Canadian soil because in Canada, the burden of providing health insurance has been lifted from the backs of private industry, thus greatly diminishing the costs of running those businesses. There is no compelling reason why an employer should be made responsible for providing insurance to its employees, anyway. The only reason it's gotten to this stage today is because many years ago, some companies began to offer health insurance as part of their benefits packages to attract quality employees. If we want to improve the quality of our economic life in this country, then we should unsaddle small companies from the burden of being expected to offer expensive health insurance benefits in a disadvantageous competition with the larger corporations. So if universal health care is undertaken as a priority in the future, one of the goals has to be freeing businesses from this burden. The second point I'd like to make is that many people, especially as they progress into their middle aged years, begin to incur what the insurance industry terms as "preexisting conditions." And preexisting conditions can make it very difficult and costly for someone if they were to change jobs or careers and have to find a new insurance provider. The affected employee may not even be the one with a preexisting condition: it could just be a dependent. If health insurance were freed from its association with employment, then that person would be free to pursue a better job, or better yet, to start up a brand new business. So, you may see that I believe that making health insurance both universal and public will actually further the aims of capitalism and spur on a new spirit of entrepreneurship in our country!