The United States health care system is very inefficient at keeping the population healthy. It ranks 46th in a survey of 48 countries and it is currently the fattest country in the world, just ahead of Mexico. Health care isn’t making us healthy, it’s just keeping everyone on life support. Furthermore cigarette company Philip Morris International ranks at #2 in lobbying Congress at 9.83 million dollars in 2012. Likewise pharmaceutical entities Merck, Johnson & Johnson, and Proctor & Gamble saw large increases in lobbying where they combined for just under 20 million dollars in 2012. Simply put, the United States health care system is unwilling to change because multimillion dollar corporations are influencing the decisions of Congress. We are unable to have a successful health care system like the one in Canada (which is ranked #1 in the world based on Canadian citizen satisfaction with the system) because the true motive is money, not health.
In terms of developed countries, the United States ranks at the bottom of every measurable statistic found in a Business Insider report. These include highest mortality rate, second worst rate of respiratory disease, and highest health care cost per capita. These high health care costs come from the fact that health care is a largely private owned industry in the United States. Insurance companies average about 25% overhead which is a major contributor to high healthcare costs in the United States. On the other hand, the state sponsored Medicare has an overhead of just 1%. When comparing these percentages in the sense of millions of dollars, the disparity is visible and the savings are huge for the consumer.
In order to create a better health care system, I propose that insurance become a fully state sponsored industry. Instead of having hundreds of health providers to choose from there will just be one provider that is paid for with taxpayer money and everyone will be able to benefit. This solves the issue of hospitals having to overcharge for certain procedures and doing unnecessary procedures just to milk insurance companies for compensation. People will no longer be faced with huge debts to hospitals for that one in a million injury/disease they get when they would otherwise be healthy. It solves the problem of millions of healthy people paying large amounts of money per month to go towards health insurance coverage when they don’t get any expensive procedures done.
The only way to solve the issue of expensive and ineffective health care coverage is to attack it at its source; private health insurance companies. They don’t provide benefits to the consumer and they lobby Congress to go against the health issues in our country. A fully state sponsored health insurance plan as seen effective in other countries is the only tried and tested system that we should move to in order to provide useful health care coverage to the people of the United States.
Source:
- http://www.healthline.com/health-news/policy-eight-healthcare-statistics-that-may-surprise-you-090113#2
- http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/biggest-increases-in-lobbying-in-u-dot-s-companies
- http://www.businessinsider.com/us-health-lags-the-developed-world-2013-1
You make a very strong case. Your idea of making healthcare a state-sponsored system is an intriguing one. However, I am wondering what will become of the current health insurance companies. If someone wanted to look further into this, they may want to look at the number of people employed by these companies, the amount of revenue they generate, and the like. Also, how did the current system evolve into the way it is now? In sum, your argument is compelling.
I really like your first problem with a bit of background reinforcing your point. I learned something new from your very first point in that a cigarette company lobbied almost 10 million dollars towards the congress a few years ago. It seems you stated only one problem rather than three; it’s great that there is a lot of information to support your problem. There is a lot of information towards your problem of choice. Wouldn’t having one insurance still allow hospitals or health service providers to milk them? Is there an example of this plan of a single state insurance working elsewhere in another part of the world? You solution is somewhat vague and based on your personal assumptions it seems.
While I think that there are definitive benefits to nationalizing the health insurance market, there are also drawbacks and I do not think this is a feasible solution, at least for right now. The first problem, as you mentioned it, are lobbyists. While companies lobbying congress often seems immoral and corrupt, it is common practice and the only feasible way to change it is through the congressmen and senators who are being lobbied. Secondly, there will major pushback from the thousands of employees who work in this industry. In order to make serious change, I think that new laws and regulations must be changed over time rather than a sudden switch to universal healthcare. This is along the lines of President Obama’s health care reform; it target some of the same problems that your post did but also did not directly limit the freedoms of the private insurance companies. However, even this proposal has been met with vicious criticism and stands to be reduced even further by a mostly Republic congress.
The problem you presented about the United States is an eye-opener. We always hear that the United States is the greatest country in the world but your points show that we are far from perfect. I agree that as long as we are motivated by money, we cannot progress as a society and more problems will result. However, I am uncertain that your proposed solution of standardizing everything will work. If there only exists one health care provider, there is nothing stopping them from overcharging as they essentially become a monopoly. It is somewhat similar to our MTA, the prices will continue to rise despite public protest and the public are forced to go along with the change because there are no alternatives. Your stance suggests the government partakes in corrupt practices of lobbying so it wouldn’t be too farfetched to believe that the health care provider will be influenced by the same people.