Government-Mandated Health Insurance – Could It Be Any Simpler?
Posted by Advocate Aaron on June 15, 2009 · Leave a Comment
The proposal: Everyone must purchase health insurance. The government will help offset insurance costs for those who cannot afford it. Insurance companies will not deny anyone coverage or increase premiums based on an individuals’ health status.
Could it be any simpler? Such a system would not only provide health care coverage for every American, it would do so in a way that does not jeopardize the quality of care received. Because insurance and health care would remain privatized, Americans would not have to suffer through long waits for inadequate care – a fate that has riddled international universal health care systems with hassles and hold-ups.
Yes, Americans would have to make one concession: Everybody would have to purchase insurance or suffer a tax penalty. This keeps premiums low for everyone, and is the key selling point to get the insurance industry on board. Some say that this type of system will only work to keep insurance executives employed. Yes… and so what? If they’re giving Americans – and especially pregnant women – what we want and what we need, they should be able to keep their jobs. It’s funny how people will complain about universal health care coverage, yet sit idle while Congress passes a stimulus bill that, among other things, will spend half a million dollars on a fruit fly facility, millions for land acquisition, and many more millions for infrastructure updates.
Universal health care is not socialism – it is people taking care of people. That principle has nothing to do with economic systems, social classes or geography. Every one of us depends on someone else for survival, from the baby suckling from her mother’s breast to the CEO cashing in on consumer spending. Classes might be divided; but our country – and humanity – is united.
The proposed universal health care system is simple, and provides for everyone. Under it, disadvantaged pregnant women would no longer have to suffer the indignity and stress of begging for maternity services and fair and equal treatment. All pregnant women would have access to proper prenatal care, and all children would receive proper medical care.
Taxes that cover Medicaid, Medicare and a slew of other federal, state and local health care assistance programs would no longer be necessary, not to mention the taxes that currently assist hospitals in covering the costs of government-mandated emergency services for the uninsured and unable to pay. These are taxes we’re already paying.
Some have said that universal health care would cost $1.5 trillion, which might be true. What they’re leaving out of the argument is that Medicare spending alone is expected to exceed that mark within the next 20 years. By consolidating all of our health into one program, we can reduce redundancies, increase efficiencies and provide much-needed high-quality health care for everyone – including pregnant women – while still saving money.
Or, are we being set up???? I want your thoughts?
