Personal Finance >
Health Insurance
RSS FeedShould government pay for all medical care?
Results so far:
| Yes | 52% | 242 votes | Total: 466 votes | |
| No | 48% | 224 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesGovernment should definitely pay for all medical care all reasonable medical care, that is. (Certainly cosmetic surgery and other optionals should be excluded.) A healthy society is best for everyone, don't you agree? We should all try to help each other.
The most important mission is to protect children, and yet the U.S.A. has one of the highest rates of infant mortality in the modern world. According to the CIA World Factbook, the U.S.A. places 180th out of 220 countries. Forty modern countries have lower infant mortality rates! This is a shocking statistic for a wealthy country like ours.
In some European countries, such as France and the U.K., ALL parents receive a monthly stipend for their children. In exchange, they are expected to meet standards of care, visiting doctors regularly beginning in the prenatal phase and continuing until the child begins school. In this way doctors monitor the health of both mother and child, preventing diseases from becoming life-threatening.
In Italy, as in many European countries, medical care is free for the chronically ill, for those who have been diagnosed with a life-threatening illness (such as cancer) or for those who are unemployed. Even when required, medical costs, are VERY low for example, the cost of visiting an ear specialist is currently 16 euro (20 dollars). The cost of a pacemaker is so low that "Medical tourism" has become fashionable for Americans. People can come to Italy, have surgery and pay for the trip, for less than they would pay in an American hospital.
Surgery for cancer, followed by a year of intensive radiation and chemotherapy and ten years of regular check-ups, costs the patient absolutely nothing. This seems so very humane. On the other hand, asking sick people to pay, or worse, asking their families to pay even when they die, is truly adding insult to injury.
Of course people do pay, but indirectly. Italy has an across-the-board tax of 20% for all working adults. Everyone chooses a family doctor. When this doctor makes a referral, the charge to see a specialist (if there is a charge) is quite low. Of course people have the possibility of paying to see experts in private clinics, in order to avoid waiting lists or to exercise personal choice, but this is optional. Hospitals generally provide excellent care. They may not cater to the most discerning taste in terms of luxuries, but they are clean and the doctors are well-trained.
Hospital Emergency rooms generally provide care at no cost or very low cost. This is done through Triage (the process of sorting patients in terms of the severity of their problem). If a person arrives at Emergency with a sore throat, they will probably be asked to pay something. But if a person arrives with a broken leg, they are taken care of quickly, without any a priori questions about health insurance.
This was illustrated to me quite vividly when I was helping an American student in Italy. She needed a blood test to diagnose an infection and she asked me what it would cost. When I translated for the doctor, he sat me down underneath a Che Guevara poster and said, "You Americans think about money too much. I'm a doctor. First I'll make the blood test, then if you like we can talk about money."
Imagine this happening in the U.S. imagine entering a hospital and receiving treatment, before anyone inspected your medical coverage!
Learn more about this author, Norma Jean Bishop.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.
No
No, the government should not pay for all medical care for every person in a nation. They certainly should ensure that everybody has access to essential and good quality health care - and that nobody is excluded due to their personal circumstances. However, there are many people who are able to contribute significantly to their own medical costs - and as such, they should be taking at least a certain degree of responsibility for it.
Without the majority of people in a society bearing a reasonable portion of their health expenses, the system cannot work long-term and ultimately nobody's best interests will be served. Most particularly, those who are most vulnerable of all will suffer. Of course, that is also the case when the government does not take enough responsibility for the health care of its citizens - and even ignores them altogether when they are in dire need. So there should be a balance, with those who are able to afford private health insurance being required to cover themselves up to a point.
Here in Australia we have had a Medicare system in place for many years now. Its goal is to provide good quality basic health care for every citizen. This means that everybody has access to public hospital care without having to meet any expenses from their own health insurance. It also means that every citizen is subsidized for the cost of consultations with a general practitioner or specialist. Some other health care is included as well. Some examples are: consultations with an optometrist; tests and examinations required by doctors in their treatment of an illness (including x-rays and pathology tests); and most surgical and other therapeutic procedures performed by doctors outside of the hospital system. Many pharmaceutical prescriptions are also subsidized by the government's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
All of this applies to the general population. For those who are on very limited incomes - such as those on pensions of various kinds - there are other health expenses met by Medicare as well. These services are not covered for others. They include ambulance services, dental examinations and treatment, home nursing and provision of basic glasses, hearing aids, etc. To receive these extra benefits a person must qualify for a Health Care Card, according to their income status and other criteria.
There is also extra subsidization of families and individuals who are in a position where they have to spend an excessive amount of money on services provided by Medicare in the course of a year. The extra subsidies kick in when they have made enough claims to reach what is know as the "safety net". The same principle applies to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme as well.
Ours is undoubtedly one of the best systems in the world. However, it has its faults and failings and ultimately it's still the most needy members of our society that suffer the consequences. Waiting lists for non-urgent surgery can be atrociously long and people can languish on these lists for years.
Many of the procedures that fall into the category of so-called "elective surgery" may be far more vital than the term suggests and have a significantly negative effect on quality of life. Furthermore, they can ultimately impact so much on a person's overall health and well-being that they can develop other problems before they make it to the top of the waiting list. Sometimes it's multiple problems - as their system breaks down in many areas - often due to immobility. There can be no doubt that this even leads to a person's premature death - when they may well have lived for much longer if they could have had the appropriate surgery at an early stage.
This happened to my mother, who passed away when she was not quite 71. Of course that's not young - but by today's standards, neither is it exactly old. We could potentially have had her to share our lives - and enjoy watching her grandchildren grow and develop - for a few more years.
There has been a lot of negative publicity in the media in the past few years too because so many people cannot get satisfactorily prompt access to the dental care they desperately need. Indeed there have been people waiting for a decade to receive dental treatment. Obviously this is far from good enough and this issue urgently needs to be addressed by the government.
Running a nation's health care system is undoubtedly very complex indeed. There is so much the government needs to take responsibility for doing on behalf of all its people to make it work efficiently. But there's also the need for those who are financially able, to take pressure off the public coffers through consistently paying premiums for private health insurance policies.
In the past decade the Australian government has introduced new laws which do require people to take some responsibility for their own health care if they are in a position to do so. Failure to have at least basic private health cover results in higher taxes for the individuals involved, as well as higher premiums for those who leave it till they are over 40 to sign up for private health insurance. I believe this is a fair and reasonable approach to helping deal with the problem - as long as people don't end up paying higher and higher premiums. Always the needs and rights of both sides should be kept in balance.
Before these laws were introduced, the general public were deserting the private health funds in droves. Many didn't feel they were getting value for the money they were paying out. If they were young and relatively healthy they just saw no need to have it. They could get most of their needs met by the public health system. However, it wasn't long before this prevailing attitude began to take its toll on that health system, which was taking too much of the pressure of the nation's health care needs.
Now that a greater percentage of the population are taking some responsibility for their own health care, at least some of the pressure will have been taken off the waiting lists for elective surgery. After all, if you have private health insurance and you need surgery, you are not going to put up with waiting for years in a long public queue. It only makes sense that you will take advantage of your private health insurance and have your problem dealt with in a fraction of the time.
It also means that many who would go into public hospitals for various reasons - including maternity - will choose to go into a private hospital instead. Of course, this also takes a considerable degree of pressure off the public health system.
These are just some of the ways in which the public health system is improved for everybody's sake when those who are financially able, have private health cover. This means that we can all receive help from the government with many essential services - and those who are most needy can receive a greater level of assistance.
A decent, honourable nation will always make sure that its children, senior citizens, chronically sick and disabled individuals and those who are unemployed, under-employed or receiving a very low income are not neglected. In a society with Christian and/or philanthropic values, it is the responsibility of those who are privileged and fortunate enough to be able to care for themselves to subsidize those who are not so blessed. Nobody knows what their own circumstances will be in the future or when they will be dependent on their society's provision for their needs.
Of course this may mean that some people will be given assistance who just don't try to help themselves at all. That is another issue though. The needs of the many who do try, and who are genuinely vulnerable, must not be jeopardized because of the minority who maybe don't deserve as much help as they get.
Ultimately the government is responsible to see that all these things work together for the overall benefit of its citizens. It is their task to look after everybody - but some will need more help than others. Only the weakest and most needy should have all their medical needs met by the government.
Learn more about this author, Ruth Woodhouse.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
