Government-subsidized Health Care In A Year?
Posted by Advocate Aaron · Leave a Comment
Could the U.S. government be voting on government-subsidized health care a year from now? They will be if Pete Stark has his way. The health care reformist and sometimes-cantankerous California representative was quoted in a recent Wall Street Journal article as predicting that it would take a year to clear a public health care plan through Congress (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123008136111331971.html).
This is great news for those of us who know the horrors of facing pregnancy without insurance. But there are plenty of people ready to rain on Stark’s parade if they have their way, including Democrats from his own party, pharmaceutical lobbyists and the health insurance industry.
Two things that set Stark apart from the rest: 1) he does not think Congress should negotiate terms with insurance companies; and 2) he does not think a public health care plan should pay whatever price pharmaceutical companies determine for prescriptions. He wants costs to be fair and affordable, something I’ve been championing as Advocate Aaron for years as well.
Like the rest of us, Stark faces several challenges in his plight to form a public health system, and is often criticized for being blunt and vocal in his positions. Stones are thrown his way because he unyieldingly stands for what he believes in — I thought that’s what we elected these people for!
Some of the arguments Stark and his supporters have to counter include the pharmaceutical industry’s stance that restrictions on drug prices will limit the availability of drugs to people who need them as well as innovation that fuels new medical discoveries. Insurance companies claim premiums will rise as younger people take out the publicly-funded health care policy.
These industries simply want to maintain and proliferate profitability. That’s fine for some corporate entities, but not those in which lives are at stake. The availability of products, in these cases, literally means the difference between life and death.
Medicare and Medicaid already pay whatever the drug companies charge, and in doing so drain public funds that could be used elsewhere – or to provide live-saving drugs to more people. And because these programs constitute two of the largest ‘clients’ drug companies have – they’re billion-dollar clients – it might be the drug companies who cannot afford to exist without publicly-funded health care, and not the other way around.
Publicly-funded insurance would, as Stark points out, have lower overhead costs than current private health care plans, which would mean lower premiums. Naturally, private health care companies don’t want us to believe this, simply because they want to make a buck.
These insurance companies have had their chance – if they would have taken the initiative to develop a health care plan that the millions of uninsured could afford, the volume of takers alone should have covered the costs – if even for a small profit. Intelligent business dictates that a little PR goes a long way, and preventive business measures (just like preventive health care practices) pay big dividends.
If the insurance companies have no consideration for the health of those who cannot afford insurance, then why should the U.S. citizenship give a damn about their business health? I get a bit cantankerous myself at times.
If Stark’s prediction is to come true, there are only two options: 1) the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies get on board and work within the demands of the American people, or 2) the American people take it upon themselves to provide health care and the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies die. There is no room for debate. That time has passed.
