This is the second in an ongoing series of columns that I'm writing for a local paper that favors the conservative perspective. My intent is to add a lefty perspective (aka, reality based information based on fact, reason, logic and historical evidence) to topical issues. As always comments and suggestions are appreciated.
****************
Does the US have an excellent health care system? Yes, overall, we do. A better question is: Do all Americans have access to quality health care? No, we don't. And that is the crux of the problem that Health Care Reform (HCR) is trying to address. But first, let's have a sanity check to see how the US stacks up in terms of overall health care quality.
Jump!
According to the World Health Organization we rank a dismal 37th out off 190 countries evaluated for overall health care quality; after such luminaries as Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Columbia and Dominica. Surprised? Well, read on. We have a higher infant mortality rate than most of the world's industrialized nations and our life expectancy is 42nd in the world. And for this less-than-stellar-performance the US pays more per capita, by a large margin, than anyone else. This high cost is not an abstract concept. A recent study found that getting sick is a factor in 62% of personal bankruptcies, more than any other cause, which just moves additional costs to the rest of us.
And, this system is killing us. A 2009 Harvard study found that almost 45,000 Americans die each year due to the lack of health insurance. Yes, this is a financial issue but it's also a moral issue. We can, and must, fix this. Consider that every other industrialized nation provides a form of public health coverage for their citizens. We're the only one that doesn't and we pay a very high price for this.
It may surprise some folks but, contrary to what we may hear in the media, a public option is actually popular with the American people. While the polls are about evenly split concerning HCR, if you look deeper into the polling data, a strong majority, 76%, support a public plan run by the states and available to those who lack private insurance options. Even medical doctors strongly support HCR. The results of a poll published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that 73% of medical doctors support either a choice of public and private health care coverage or a public option only. Given the amount of fear-mongering and factually-challenged propaganda that we've all been bombarded with, this level of support is surprising.
"It'll bankrupt our country!" Probably not. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that a government-run public option would actually reduce federal deficits. And the CBO's assessment of the Senate HCR bill illustrates a similar finding: it provides insurance to currently uninsured Americans and it does so cost-effectively. These findings would seemingly neutralize much of the opposition's posturing about the fiscally disastrous nature of HCR but empirical data never stopped a good debate.
Also, keep in mind that millions of Americans currently enjoy quality and affordable health care that is either completely socialist in nature (Veterans Affairs), is delivered via a publicly managed insurance system (Medicare and Medicaid) or is paid for by public money which impacts most people who work for federal or state agencies which, ironically enough, includes our wily politicians in Washington.
Without objective evidence of just why HCR is such an awful thing the conservative case against it has devolved into unhinged; albeit entertaining, claims. Seriously, the following have actually been stated by elected Republican leaders: "It'll kill grandma.", "It contains death panels.", "It's socialism.", "It'll destroy Medicare.". "It'll destroy our country." and, "It's the greatest threat to freedom in the last nineteen years." Seriously.
Theodore Roosevelt was the first national figure to advocate for universal health care in 1912 and there have been many subsequent attempts to deal with this lingering issue. However, the conservative forces have always been successful in defeating these progressive efforts. Why the dedication to defeat something that is widely embraced and highly successful throughout the industrialized world? Why dedicate so many resources and political capital to defeat something that is so obviously good for the people?
I've thought long and hard about this and, once the conspiracy theories and fear-mongering claims are brushed aside, I have only come up with two plausible explanations. First, if the Democrats succeed with implementing HCR that is both good for the American people and isn't a financial debacle, then this will severely damage one of the key planks in the GOP platform: government can't do anything right and the free market is the only efficient way to deliver goods and services. If that maxim is proven wrong we probably won't see a Republican majority for a couple of decades.
The second reason is summed up by the pithy saying that is applicable to many of humanity's greatest political failures: follow the money. I believe that this is ultimately about corporate profits. Corporate America is the true constituent of the GOP and the amoral protection of private profits at public expense has long been a top priority, strategy and tactic. Corporations often get what they pay for.