The Orbis

Issue date: 10/2/07 Section: News/Features

While there are many diverse existing examples worldwide of public plans providing some form of guaranteed health care for all of their citizens, most of all of them share a few basic commitments and motivations. If nothing else, universal health care must be able to ensure that every single citizen is guaranteed access to healthcare. Another aspiration should be to make sure that the working-class, the chronically sick and the elderly are not hit with unbearable financial burdens in times of illness that compound their worries and health problems. Such a system would have as its fundamental aim, ensuring that health insurance is not simply treated like any other commodity (or worse, a luxury), available only to those able to afford it. Put succinctly, any system worthy of the name must require that basic access to health care be designated as a basic human right, not a privilege.

While there are many important things to be said about the political feasibility or the wonky specifics of exactly how a system of this sort might take shape in our country, I am going to take a different approach here. Instead, I'd like to take head-on some of the most common arguments invoked against universal health care. So now, let's debunk some of the most common objections to UHC:

Myth #1: "UHC is too expensive, taxes rates would have to sky rocket to pay for it"

Rather than cost more money, Single-Payer universal health care would reduce the cost of health insurance for close to 95 percent of Americans. Single payer is not a charity; everyone would be required to pay for health insurance as a taxpayer. Unlike the flat-rate premiums which do not take into account one's ability to afford a particular rate, financing insurance through a graduated income tax would enable everyone to pay according to their means. In other words, Bill Gates and a working-class single mother would not be expected to pay the same rate for health insurance. By spreading the cost fairly across the entire population, saving dollars wasted by private companies on advertising and providing preventive medicine to those who would otherwise only crowd emergency rooms, Single-Payer actually saves the vast majority of Americans money and absolutely guarantees that health insurance costs are proportional to income. The only sector of the populace who would see an increase in the costs of health insurance would be the top 5 percent of earners who would likely have to give up the colossal tax breaks they have received during the Bush years. It is true that tax rates would have to increase by some measure for most all Americans in order to fund a Single-Payer system, however, it is also crucial to remember that all costs (premiums, expensive co-pays and deductibles) previously charged by private insurance companies would disappear. We must also remember that the tax increase would be progressively distributed so that each taxpayer would only be asked to pay an increase proportional to their income level. Our government has spent over a half-trillion dollars to fund an unnecessary and unjust war; how can we truly believe that there is simply not enough 'money in the bank' to afford universal health care when a simple rearrangement of spending priorities could redirect a wealth of funds towards this much needed end.

Continued...

< prev Page 2 of 4 next >

Article Tools