“No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.”
I just saw this on Facebook. One of my friends posted it as his status. I did not update my status with the same message. It is interesting how this healthcare debate is going. I personally think this is an enormously complex issue that cannot be argued in 35-word status updates on Facebook.
Breaking this sentence down into both its parts is pretty interesting. I’m going to start with the second point first.
“No one should go broke because they get sick.”
I am generally opposed to Obamacare, but this is a point with which I generally agree. I have read statistics that suggest 2 out of every 3 bankruptcies in the U.S. are caused by medical expenses. I think it is horrendous that people in this great country are forced into financial ruin by medical costs for unfortunate health situations. This is an area where I think legitimate reform is needed. But what is that reform?
Having a government run health plan is not the option. Why not encourage individuals to buy catastrophic health insurance? Or maybe even have the government offer catastrophic medical coverage, to cover costs above where traditional insurance stops, say at $1 million. My preference is a private market solution, because I think the government is inefficient in running just about every program they run. But I do think something needs to be done for cancer patients, accident victims, etc. that incur significant medical costs through no fault of their own.
I do have some reservations about this basic concept though for some of the same reasons I cannot agree with the first point above. It is an interesting slippery slope. If the above stats are correct, approximately 33% of people file for bankruptcy for reasons other than medical costs. What are those reasons? Loss of job, natural disaster without appropriate insurance, excessive spending, all those and many others are potential causes. Should the government bail out those people? If so, which ones?
Excessive spending is a definite no, but what about having your house destroyed by an earthquake or hurricane? What about two people on the same block, both houses destroyed, but one family saved money and insured against the loss, the other chose not to. Should taxpayers reward the one who lived recklessly at the expense of the one who planned ahead for the unexpected? I say no to all of them. So, logically, it is hard for me to justify the difference between a medical emergency and a property destroying natural disaster. However, with that said, I still would encourage reform that included tax incentives for individuals to purchase medical catastrophe insurance.
“No one should die because they cannot afford health care.”
This is another slippery slope. Should anyone die because they cannot afford food? Should anyone die because they cannot afford to move outside of violent, gang infested neighborhood? The two most basic needs of humanity are food and shelter, and yet the government does not guarantee either of those to all people. Why is healthcare different? I do not see any reason why healthcare should be any different, yet that has been a critical argument in favor of universal healthcare. Additionally, there are hundreds and hundreds of reasons that people should not die. The government does not get involved with all of these reasons.
Healthcare is a very challenging issue. I will have more thoughts in general on Obamacare, or healthcare reform in general in the coming days because this is an important issue that deserves serious, intelligent discussion. Regardless of your political views, I hope to provide both of those.
If you found this informative or interesting – consider making a donation. 50% of all donations go to charity! Thank you!