Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedIs expanding government health programs an inefficient way to help the uninsured?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 55% | 48 votes | Total: 88 votes | |
| No | 45% | 40 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesExpanding government health programs IS an INefficient way to help the uninsured IF those who are uninsured are of sound mind and body and DO NOT want to be insured. Citing :The US Supreme Court decision in 1973 of Roe vs. Wade, or the woman's right to choose rested upon the sovereignty of personal liberty and right to privacy under the 14th Amendment in the US Constitution and in the Bill of Rights. It would be unconstitutional for the federal government to dictate "the help" that the uninsured must receive. To preclude this choice by way of a federal law is unconstitutional and will be resisted by millions of tax-paying, law abiding Americans who believe in their free choice and in the US Constitution - clearly the basis of why this country is great and why people from all over the world want to come here. For individual democratic free-choice, not communism.
At present, there are virtually NO health insurance companies that completely cover wholistic and alternative health care. Yes, there is some coverage of alternative or wholistic health care, that includes some alternative treatment such as acupuncture treatments or chiropractic services, but NONE, that I am aware of, that cover nutritional supplements. And nutritional supplements are the meat and potatoes so to speak, of alternative medicine, as opposed to alternative treatment.
And millions of people purchase nutritional supplements as well as books and other nutritional information as out-of- pocket expenses at health food stores across this country on a daily basis. They do this simply because they do NOT want pharmaceuticals drugs in their bodies because of the side-effects inherent in many, if not most drugs that health insurance companies cover. And millions of people across America purchase organically-based nutritional supplements simply because they work and because they are safe and natural. People are healthier in this country, not because of drugs, but in spite of them.
It's a known fact that millions of people die yearly because of pharmaceutical drugs. This is astonishing and yet this multi-billion dollar industry with outrageously high mark-ups from manufacturing costs, is allowed, encouraged, hyped, sold and worshipped by every facet of the media and by politicians as "health care." Sure pharmaceutical drugs work on some level, but at what cost to the person's health and personal budget?
The nutritional supplement industry that is organically-based (as opposed to synthetically-based) is a multi-million dollar industry that is clearly at risk, because the pharmaceutical companies want to monopolize and control all of health care in this country, as they already have in Europe. This is ALL about MONEY folks and who has it and who wants to continue to control it. By expanding government health care programs, the pharmaceutical companies, working no doubt with the present candidates running for the 2008 presidential office, want to corner the market on all health care creating the impression that pharmaceutical drugs are the only solution to affordable health care. They are not.
Government health programs do have their place, whether on a state or federal level. But the recipients of these programs must be voluntary recipients of this health care, not forced.
Expanding government health programs can be an efficient way to help the uninsured ONLY IF those who are UNINSURED wish to accept the government health program that is being offered. And no doubt, millions of uninsured who are American citizens will want what the government is offering in the way of "affordable" health care. "Free health care" though is another matter, because the issue then becomes, if it is "free" who pays for it and who is it free to? If the wealthy in this country will be forced to pay for "free" health care for the poor which will no doubt include the millions of illegal immigrants in the USA, then this will clearly not work. The rich in this country will strongly oppose their paying for free health care to millions of people who are here illegally in this country, notwithstanding the American poor.
But it would be a huge mistake on the part of the federal government to even assume that all the people in this country who are uninsured, want a government health care program, EVEN IF it is "free."
Learn more about this author, Gloria Allen.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Expanding government health programs is not an inefficient way. In fact, it is the only practical way to reasonably help the uninsured. However, the manner in which this expansion is undertaken may be efficient or inefficient.
In simpler words, when it comes to ensuring healthcare, the millions of uninsured Americans cannot be left to the vagaries and uncertainties of the market, and that being so, the only other feasible option is that the government provide their health needs and bears the cost.
WHY HEALTH CARE CAN NOT BE LEFT TO THE MARKET
Economists call health care a 'MERIT GOOD' - meaning that it is something that should be available to all irrespective of their paying capacity.
However, this is not the only reason why medical care cannot be left totally to the market forces. There are certain other features of medical care, which prevent free market to provide efficiency in medical care. Most important of them is the fact that medical care market is a SUPPLIER DRIVEN MARKET - where the supplier (and not the buyer) decides what he should buy. So the medication you take, the medical investigations you are made to undergo, and the surgery you agree to subject yourself - are all decided by your physician or surgeon - not by you, and these medical specialists, stand to gain by making you undergo these medications or procedures.
The supplier driven market has an interesting characteristic - more the number of suppliers, more will be the demand for them, so that prices will never come down.
Because of these characteristics, the medical care market is never as efficient as the free markets for other commodities. This makes government intervention necessary.
MORAL HAZARD OF MEDICAL INSURANCE: LEADS TO RISING COSTS
Another reason that needs an intervention by Government, is the fact that insurance for medical care creates a problem of its own. Once a patient is insured, he is least interested in containing the cost of his medical care, and when all customers are similarly indifferent - thanks to insurance cover - the premiums for medical insurance go up and up, making medical insurance difficult to afford for a lot of people.
ROLE OF GOVERNEMNT HEALTH CARE PROGRAMS
The government health programs have a very important role in all countries. Many countries rely on it much more than insurance, but even in countries like US, where medical insurance is the primary source of medical care financing, government programs have an important role to play, to ensure that all citizens have some facility for medical care available to them.
One of the main criticisms against the government health programs pertains to their deficiencies, and comparative unresponsiveness of the medical personnel deployed therein. However, many of these deficiencies are because of distortions in incentives available to these personnel, and can be removed by better management and accountability.
For the millions of Americans who do not have a proper medical insurance cover, expanding government health programs provide a major source of security against medical catastrophe. Even for the corporate sector, it will be a welcome step, given the fact, that rising costs of medical insurance of employees is posing a threat to their financial health during the last few years. Lastly, such a step would also put some breaks on the consistently escalating costs of medical care, which is already much higher than any other country, and is projected to rise further in the coming years.
The expansion of government is NOT an inefficient way to help the uninsured. In fact, it may be the ONLY VIABLE OPTION to help the uninsured!
Learn more about this author, V. Kumar.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Health Care
- Should insurance companies play intermediary between patients and doctors?
- Does Medicare's crackdown on doctors' profits help or hurt patients?
- Should each generation save for their own retirement health care needs?
- Patients and doctors should be able to negotiate prices for health care services under Medicare
- Have HMOs improved or undermined patient care in America?
- Should health care be controlled by the government or by patients?
