Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[damyanti]

Universal health care is affordable health care coverage which is extended to all eligible residents of a governmental region. These programs vary widely in their structure and funding mechanisms, particularly the degree to which they are publicly funded. Typically, most health care costs are met by the population via compulsory health insurance or taxation, or a combination of both. The US is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide universal health care, according to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences and others. Universal health care is provided in most developed countries, in many developing countries, and is the trend worldwide. Its one of those things that marks how civilized a certain society is.

While the US government provides health insurance for veterans, the elderly, poor and disabled, there has yet to be a system that ensures coverage for every citizen. In the U.S., health insurance is typically provided to workers and their families by their employers. The U.S. government offers a tax reduction to employers offering health benefits in what is referred to as a 'tax expenditure'. The exclusion of employer contributions for medical care amount to the nation's top tax expenditure at $102.3 billion in 2004, which is nearly twice as much as the next highest tax expenditure- mortgage interests.

According to the OECD 2003 Health Data report, the United States tops the OECD ranking for overall health care spending at $4900 per capita in 2001, more than twice the OECD average of $2100. Though more than half of the cost is private funding, the U.S. government spends the most out of all OECD countries (except Norway, Luxembourg and Iceland) per capita even though only about 25 percent of the population is insured through public programs compared with 90 per cent in other OECD countries. I suggest to my American friends, especially those who oppose Universal health care, to read this twice....and in case you need translation.....it means, you got screwed.

There are many different ways to organize universal health systems. A single-payer health care system is typically a government-run organization that collects and pays out all health care costs. Germany has a universal multi-payer system with two main types of health insurance: "Compulsory health insurance" and "Private." The French health care system, rated the best in the world by the World Health Organization, has private and public health care providers and universal access funded by taxes and co-fees. The United States is the only developed nation without a universal health care system.

Proponents of a universal health care system point to the global trend of industrialized countries with providing health care. Administrative costs would be drastically decreased. The U.S. government spends more than all other countries per capita without receiving proportional health benefits and more than 47 million people are uninsured.

Opponents cite that income taxes would increase and private insurance companies may be put out of the health care administrative business, a result that would fly in the face of laissez-faire capitalism the US was founded upon. Considering how inane their argument is, my guess is opponents are those who are selfish ie. “it cant happen to me” types, those who form their judgement on hearsay and heads of extortionist insurance companies.

The World Health Organization has carried out the first ever analysis of the world's health systems. Using five performance indicators to measure health systems in 191 member states, it finds that France provides the best overall health care followed among major countries by Italy, Spain, Oman, Austria and Japan.

WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).

The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance. The data about the number of U.S. residents without health insurance varies between 44 and 48 million people. Many of those people lost their jobs — and their insurance — because of the struggling economy. For some, insurance was lost when double-digit premium increases caused employers to stop offering coverage. Some of the uninsured opted not to enroll in coverage offered by employers, as the amount taken from their paychecks to cover the cost rose.

The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy.

Dr Christopher Murray, Director of WHO's Global Programme on Evidence for Health Policy. says: "Although significant progress has been achieved in past decades, virtually all countries are under- utilizing the resources that are available to them. This leads to large numbers of preventable deaths and disabilities; unnecessary suffering, injustice, inequality and denial of an individual's basic rights to health."

The impact of failures in health systems is most severe on the poor everywhere, who are driven deeper into poverty by lack of financial protection against ill- health.

"The poor are treated with less respect, given less choice of service providers and offered lower- quality amenities," says Dr Brundtland. "In trying to buy health from their own pockets, they pay and become poorer."

One key recommendation from the report is for countries to extend health insurance to as large a percentage of the population as possible. WHO says that it is better to make "pre-payments" on health care as much as possible, whether in the form of insurance, taxes or social security.

While private health expenses in industrial countries now average only some 25 percent because of universal health coverage (except in the United States, where it is 56%), in India, families typically pay 80 percent of their health care costs as "out-of- pocket" expenses when they receive health care.

"It is especially beneficial to make sure that as large a percentage as possible of the poorest people in each country can get insurance," says Dr Frenk. "Insurance protects people against the catastrophic effects of poor health. What we are seeing is that in many countries, the poor pay a higher percentage of their income on health care than the rich, (and that includes the US, “the greatest nation in the world”, shame on you)."

In many countries without a health insurance safety net, many families have to pay more than 100 percent of their income for health care when hit with sudden emergencies. In other words, illness forces them into debt.


I find the question whether there should be universal health care system available completely redundant. The legitimate question is which system of it works best for each country, but everyone has the right to decent health care. If you think that the worth of a human life is measured by their earning power, I have only two things to say to you 1) You are going to burn in Hell, and 2) Vive le socialisme!

[lucy]

I find the question whether there should be universal health care system available completely redundant. The legitimate question is which system of it works best for each country, but everyone has the right to decent health care. If you think that the worth of a human life is measured by their earning power, I have only two things to say to you 1) You are going to burn in Hell, and 2) Vive le socialisme!

Exactly my feelings. Especially in a country like America, which often displays itself as the spearhead of civilization (at least that's the impression i sometimes get in Europe), that shouldn't be a question. There are different ways to provide all people with health care, so far noone has proven to be the perfect one.

However, spending almost 15% of the gross national product on health care, how America does, and leaving out a substantial part of the population seems to be a very bad deal.
Those 15% are, btw, by far the highest percentage worldwide, second is Switzerland with about 13% of the gnp.

The discussion that needs to be led is not IF everybody should have access to health care, but WHAT should be paid for. Because obviously it won't be possible to pay everything medically possible for everybody. And even less so in the future, with life extectancy in most of the countries which are members of the OECD (not in America, though, where life expectancy is actually sinking. That's some food for thought too...)

[lucy]

One more thing: There are middle ways between free universal and privately funded health care systems.
In Switzerland, every person pays the same amount for his health insurance. Insurance companies are private enterprises. Poor people get a refund which is paid directly to the insurance company (otherwise it would probably be spent on booze, babes and cars). It works pretty well, however, the costs are on the rise, so there needs to be a strong mechanism to keep people from running to the doctor with every cold, expecting to get the best possible treatment for almost no money.

And as various others have said before me: It's bound to get more expensive with people getting older and with treatments getting more expensive.
My Master works in the research division of a Swiss pharmaceutical company, and according to him in the future drugs will become extremely accurate to deal with a specific health problem, but also extremely expensive.
For example, Roche has built a whole factory in Germany to produce one single drug that is very effective in treating breast cancer. Unfortunately, only about a third of breast cancer victims respond to this drug. I don't remember what he said what a treatment costs on average, but it was more than i earn in two years.
But then again, i'm heavily underpaid and work only part time