FORTY-SEVEN million people in the United States do not have health insurance. That number has only risen (by 2.2 million in the last year, to be exact). The Democratic candidates, Barack Obama, John Edwards and, most recently, Hillary Clinton, have carefully outlined their plans for health care, all promising significant changes. Most Republicans, however, have barely even broached the topic. Those that have articulated their viewpoints have put forth unsatisfactory and insincere attempts to promote access to the health care system.
First of all, health care is a critical issue. According to the August 2007 Kaiser Tracking Poll, health care remains the second most important issue (behind Iraq) and most important domestic issue to Americans for the upcoming 2008 election. The World Health Organization (WHO) reported that the United States spent 15.4 percent of its gross domestic product in 2004 on health care. In percentage terms, this far outpaces other industrialized nations such as Japan (7.8 percent), Canada (9.8 percent), and the United Kingdom (8.1 percent), but with far worse outcomes. For example, the life expectancy of an American male is 75 years (80 years for a female), while males in the United Kingdom have life expectancies of 77 (81 years for a female).
Of course, this is not an indictment of the U.S. health care system. Factors beyond health care, most notably the cultural differences in diet, contribute to life expectancy. However, it must be noted that these other nations ensure coverage for all citizens. Politicians in this nation, no matter how they choose to approach the problem, have a responsibility to address and work towards solutions for health care in this nation.
Yet, Republicans do not seem willing to do that. Instead of sincerely addressing the Democratic plans, the Republican candidates keep referring to the Democratic plans as "socialized medicine" rather than universal health care. The idea of linking something in the U.S. with socialism, Republicans hope, will scare citizens into quickly turning the plans down.
The plans brought up by Democrats are not "socialized medicine;" they are plans of universal health care. The concepts are linked, but socialized medicine implies that the government runs the health care system, which the Democrats have not proposed. Instead, the Democrats have proposed building and improving on the existing system of employer insurance with supplemental government programs.
Republicans, conversely, have not sufficiently developed a plan of action. The New York Times lead editorial on Monday, "Battle Over Health Care," pointed out that John McCain has not said anything substantial about health care. The editorial also pointed out that another Republican candidate, Fred Thompson, has yet to outline any plan. Rudy Giuliani supports "free-market" approaches, specifically mentioning a $15,000 tax deduction to help families purchase private insurance. Guiliani fails to recognize the high administrative fees of individual insurance versus group insurance, as well as an insurance company's ability to simply refuse coverage to an individual at high risk.
Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, has the most detailed plan of any Republican. During a West Des Moines, Iowa town hall meeting that can be found on his Web site, Romney even states, "I think we need to get all of our citizens in the insurance system; I think we need to have all of our people in our health system." He would rely on states to individually make their own plans (as Massachusetts has done), but without federal assistance. He does propose incentives to states that deregulate their health insurance markets to encourage cheaper policies. Unfortunately, as the New York Times points out, few states have the financial resources to carry out the plan.
These mostly lackluster plans make an individual wonder about the Republicans' dedication towards this issue. Clinton, Obama and Edwards all rely on funding of their plans in part through rolling back President Bush's tax cuts for people with incomes of greater than $250,000. Republicans, of course, could not propose such a move without alienating their conservative base. Going to the very heart of the ideology, some conservatives argue the government does not have a role in providing health care.
Such an ideology seems so heartless that it makes one wonder if it can possibly be legitimate. While I strongly believe in the efficiency of a free market economy, a free market economy just does not work for health care. How can one derive the utility of living ten more years? People value their health far more than they value a television or a new car. That is why so many industrialized nations have maintained free market economies for most goods, but not for health care. These governments recognize that they have a substantial role to play in providing health care to their citizens. This role does not have to be socialized medicine or even socialized financing of medicine. A move in the direction of universal health care, as the Democrats have proposed, is a step in the right direction.
Unlike many issues that come to Democrats and Republicans, stark contrasts can be found philosophically and in future policy. If the Republicans seriously want to compete in the election, they must work harder to propose meaningful solutions to help the uninsured. For once, perhaps politics can be put aside to ensure that the citizens of our nation are granted the health care that some foreigners already call a fundamental right.
Rajesh Jain's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at rjain@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
