|
In the My Turn of Jan. 14, Frank D. Romano makes many statements against universal health care that are not only not substantiated, but are patently false ("Health bills reach for failed solutions"). He treats his claims as if they were self-evident without an ounce of data, but doesn't present any kind of solution.
Claim: "Constant dramatic proof throughout the world that a socialist state, whether it is Sweden or the former USSR, simply doesn't work."
Fact 1. There is a huge difference between the communist USSR and the socialistic democracies throughout Europe etc. Socialism is not the same as communism.
Fact 2. It is evident that the democracies in Europe, though socialistic in nature, but with some of the world's highest standards of living, are very successful countries, e.g. Germany, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Italy, Spain and others. Pursuing socialism is anything but futile and beneficial to the whole population, not just the rich.
If Jesus were preaching here today, he would preach socialism, where the better off take care of the ones in need. You are your brothers' keeper.
Claim: "Health care is already available to everyone, despite economic status albeit inadequately or unevenly dispensed."
Fact: This claim is despicable. Although health insurance in principle is available to all, the reality is that millions of Americans cannot afford or even get insurance. Insurance companies have the "freedom" to deny insurance for pre-existing conditions, cancel your insurance when you get sick, reject valid claims even when you have insurance and/or charge exorbitant premiums. That is why the majority of bankruptcies are caused by exorbitant medical expenses.
Health care might not be a constitutional right, but it is certainly is a moral and human right.
Claim: "Neither Medicaid and Medicare, programs administered by the government, work well at all."
Fact: Medicare, and to a certain extent Medicaid, provide health insurance to the most medically costly group in our society. These programs are not perfect and can be improved. Expanding Medicare to include the majority of more healthy, young people would only make it more affordable by spreading the costs over a much larger population.
Opponents of universal health care claim that private industry is always more efficient then government bureaucracy. If that is so, why is there so much resistance to universal health care or even a government option? Surely this would not be significant competition for the (supposedly) more efficient private companies. The administrative overhead of Medicare and Medicaid is dwarfed by the high administrative costs of the private insurance companies.
Claim: "It's improbable the government can deliver a comprehensive and cost-effective plan."
Fact: Universal health care does not equate to government-run. Many of the health plans in European countries are based on a system with private insurance companies and they do it for much less then what it costs the American people.
For example, a hospital in Toronto with 900 beds has 13 administrative people to handle health insurance administration. A similar hospital in the U.S. (also with 900 beds) had more than 10 times the admin people to handle the myriad forms, rules, etc., of our health care insurers.
The key is they all have to provide the same basic plan, at the same cost and without profit. Eliminating the profit motive is a crucial aspect of any universal health care system.
Frits T. Verdonk
Source: The Burlington Free Press February 2010
|
