Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Universal health care would benefit U.S. economy

Published: Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Updated: Tuesday, November 3, 2009 07:11

There are many complicated problems with the current health care system that require thorough consideration and careful reorganization, but there is one answer above all others that we must get right: reform must include universal care. Currently, America is the only developed nation that does not provide comprehensive health care for all of its citizens. This must change. Economics and morality sometimes tear us in different directions, but in this case, caring for our neighbors is profitable. With a single-payer system and universal care, businesses will pay less money for healthier employees and employees will pay less money for better care. A thoroughly reformed universal health care system is a big win for all parties.

In Germany, Otto von Bismarck achieved universal health care under the conservative theory that poor people who are sick work less and earn less profits for their employers. It still works.

About 14,000 Americans lose their insurance every day. A Harvard Medical School study shows that the uninsured are 40 percent more likely to die than those with insurance. The annual deaths from those who are uninsured are now 14 times higher than the victim toll of Sept. 11.

Even those who do currently have insurance will benefit from reform, because they will eliminate their chance of succumbing to bankruptcy from medical expenses and guarantee their future prosperity and function in the economy.

In the last decade, health insurance costs have doubled while out-of-pocket expenses have climbed by more than 30 percent. One reason for this is private insurance companies often refuse to pay for medical services covered under their programs. 

A 2009 study in California by the Institute of Health and Socioeconomic Policy revealed many rejections of legitimate claims for covered services contributed to the astonishing average claim rejection rates of 39.6 percent for Pacifi-Care and 32.7 percent for Cigna.

The system of private insurance not only denies legitimate claims, it wastes money on expenditures that have nothing to do with providing care.

From 2000 to 2007, the top ten insurance companies increased their profits by 428 percent, from $2.4 billion to $12.7 billion (not including executive salaries), with examples of excessive executive compensation including the former CEO of United Health Group paying himself $800 million in stock options.

Meanwhile, doctors and hospitals pay the costs of administrative staffs required to negotiate the needlessly excessive bureaucracy. All of these wastes would be drastically reduced or eliminated under a single payer system. The money that could be saved is in the range of $350 billion per year, enough to overhaul the entire system and provide universal coverage without increasing anyone's payments into the system.

Single payer systems are functionally capitalist, not socialist, because private companies compete for the funding. In fact, evidence from other democracies shows that publicly funded health care creates greater competition than what is currently achieved by privately funded health care in the U.S. According to a 2008 study by the American Medical Association's Division of Economic and Health Policy Research, 94 percent of the metropolitan areas in the U.S. lacked any significant competition between health care insurance providers (by the standards of the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission).

Doctors across the country are joining together and standing up for the necessity of a thoroughly reformed universal health care system. In the words of American Medical Association President Nancy H. Nielsen, "AMA physicians are in the nation's capitol calling for reform that will provide everyone with portable, affordable health care coverage, regardless of employment. Fixing the health care system is good for families, and it's good for the economy."


-Myles Ikenberry is a graduate student in chemical engineering. Please send comments to opinion@spub.ksu.edu.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

5 comments

KSU Alumni
Thu Nov 5 2009 17:13
I agree with the author, the President, and common sense. People going bankrupt over health care is unacceptable.
Mike
Wed Nov 4 2009 10:09
There are so many things wrong with the current proposed health reform plan -- it will seriously hurt small businesses, worsen quality and timeliness of care, and increase the national debt on top of the hundreds of billions it already has in the past year.

Quite frankly, one of the easiest things that would start "fixing" the health care system (which we can't deny, does have its current shortfalls) would be to open up inter-state competition between the insurance companies. It's called the free market -- the free market which has worked for pretty much every other major retail and business sector in the United States. This competition would create lower prices and improved quality of care (as insurance companies with poor practices, high claim rejection rates, etc., would lose business and shut down -- similar to say the restaurant down the street with bad service, bad food, and so on).

The other thing that needs to be tackled is frivolous malpractice lawsuits aimed at the medical industry. Yes, some are valid to be sure -- but this is a very bad situation, where trigger-happy, money-hungry lawyers are ready to go after doctors at the drop of a hat, regardless of probable blame or not. This leads to doctors spending more on malpractice insurance and excessive testing of patients (to make sure they don't miss anything -- a CYA, if anyone is familiar with that acronym), which leads to higher prices charged to the consumer and/or that the insurance companies have to pay. Rates increase, and the cycle continues.

sick about it
Tue Nov 3 2009 22:28
all I can say about the health care debate is that if any of the current "plans" pass (pray they dont!) I will loose my eligibility with my current provider (thru my husband) to be "covered by the government. Under one plan, my employer would be REQUIRED to provide insurance for me...but I currently have coverage. She would have to let me go because she could not afford to give me insurance (this is a company of 1 full timer-her, and 2 part timers-my self & my coworker-she'd lose her job too, and the owner would have to close her business)
So, once I am unemployed, dropped from my husbands insurance, my kids are dropped from his insurance, and am "relying on my government to cover me" I sure hope that K-State will give me a break on my kids tuition, because suddenly I wont be able to afford to do anything, let alone get sick.
The thought of just how screwed up the future of health care may end up being is giving me an ulcer and raising my blood pressure. Too bad I'll have to wait months to get an appointment to see someone.
government interference is NOT the answer, it's a death sentence
Nate
Tue Nov 3 2009 19:18
Well, maybe if consumer retail businesses had more to do with our health that would be a legitimate comparison, but since they deal much more with our non-essential, disposable income, that's kind of like comparing the gas I need to get to work everyday, and the gas used for someone to race around in their hobby car. Everyone will need health care at some point in their life, no one needs the latest home decor from Target. I'm not for universal health care in the U.S. right now, we have way too many people and many other serious problems to attend to first before we tackle this monster, but I'm also not for CEO's (or anybody) making close to a billion dollars off of others misfortunes while denying others coverage because they're too sick. Gripe all you want, but hey, we are forced to carry insurance already - car insurance - and many people never have to use that.
Go Cats!
Tue Nov 3 2009 18:26
You state that single payer systems are functionally capitalist and you use the fact that you think health insurance companies are too profitable to prove your point. If you really are a capitalist, you shouldn't care how much insurance companies are making, should you? You throw around the number $12.7 billion in profits by the top 10 insurance companies like it's some outrageous number. $12.7 billion is a lot of money, but numbers are misleading unless you have a comparison. United Healthcare had a profit margin of roughly 3.5% last year. Walmart and Target had similar profit margins. So by your standard, Walmart and Target are too profitable and the Federal government should get involved in the consumer retail business also, because the current retail companies are obviously taking advantage of the consumers. You can claim that universal health care isn't socialist all you want, but a lot of your supporting arguments are based in socialism.






log out