What Path Will We Take?
Posted by Advocate Aaron on April 25, 2009 · Leave a Comment
What path will we take to a public health care system? That’s the question posed by Atul Gawande in this New Yorker article (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/26/090126fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all). Gawande’s poignant piece ponders the transition from private to public health care, or variations thereof, from Britain to France to Massachusetts. In each example, the historical factors that drove a fundamental change in health care were very different. The article begs the question, what path will we take?
The answer is still largely undecided. What can be answered, however, is the question of whether national health care can work. The answer is yes.
During his inauguration speech, President Obama spoke of America’s courage, of America’s values, of America’s prosperity. National health care reform is part of his message of change; and working hard to address social issues that put our nation in danger has already helped to combat inequality. Still, the battle against inequality is waged on many fronts: status, career, wealth, race, religion and health care, among others.
Every day pregnant women are subjected to inequalities, whether it’s unnecessary stress related to ethnicity or a refusal of treatment because of socioeconomic status or a lack of insurance. Health care reform can combat these issues by providing better access to needed services, preserving the lives and livelihoods of women and their children.
The question then becomes: Should health care be 100% government-run or government-subsidized? The answer is a bit trickier. America doesn’t like to be in the business of, well, putting people out of business; particularly large corporations like those who dole out health insurance policies. It could be said that these companies have dug their own graves by making insurance unaffordable for many Americans, thus necessitating government intervention.
On the other side of the fence are those who believe the private health insurance sector would be adequate without government intervention. It is the government’s willingness, they say, to pay whatever health care providers charge that has driven up medical costs, causing insurers to charge more for insurance. Without government bail-outs, both medical practices and insurers would be in a truly competitive marketplace, and would in effect have to institute a bidding war to attract customers.
The problem with that is that, often, when the lowest bidder wins the quality of service is compromised. American health care quality is already suspect, and jeopardizing this any more spells trouble for everyone.
The most likely scenario, and one that current proposals seem to advocate, is one in which private insurance companies continue to operate in that capacity while the government subsidizes specific plans available only through public avenues. At the same time, the government will enact policies that strive to keep health care costs low without sacrificing quality of treatment.
The success of any health care reform will be decided by two measures: can everyone access quality health care, and can the program that allows them to do so be sustained?
In the meantime, many Americans are suffering, putting off cancer treatment, ignoring a chest pain, and skipping prenatal care – causing untold numbers of complications and deaths.
President Obama, the spotlight is on you. You’ve promised change. Now it’s time to make good on that promise. If you’re going to bring proper health care and equal treatment to pregnant women, regardless of socioeconomic status, wealth, race or insurance, you have my support.
