Clinton unveils mandatory health care insurance plan - CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/17/health.care/index.html
With the Democratic candidates lining up to present their national health care plans, we might wonder what it will cost for everyone to be insured. Surely there will be some effect on the rest of us.
To be sure, basic health care coverage for all will mean longer lines in the waiting rooms of general and family practitioners. And there will certainly be an increased cost in either taxes or in premiums. So is it fair that those of us with access to health care be burdened with the costs for those who don't?
No, it is not fair. It is not fair that those who worked hard to get through school and get a job with benefits pay also for the benefits of those who may not have worked hard at school, or who may not have gone to college. It is not fair, but fairness is not the reason for universal health care.
There are self interests at hand. Although your wait at the doctor's office may be longer, the load on hospital emergency departments will be lighter as peoples' colds and influenza, stomach aches and fevers are cared for by a primary care physician rather than an ED staff. That means the waiting room at the hospital will be nearly empty when you arrive with chest pain or facial paralysis.
The cost of primary care is cheaper than ED care, so there will be savings there too. And many problems may be caught earlier, resulting in less drastic - and expensive - emergency care.
Crowded areas of poor people without health care access can be reservoirs of illness. The working poor may be unloading pallets of fruit, or washing dishes in your favorite restaurant, or delivering your newspaper. Although most businesses strive to keep their customers safe from disease, many of the poor are afraid to miss a day of work due to illness. And if the local viruses don't scare you, consider this: the most likely place for an epidemic of bird flu, or a terrorist's engineered disease, is in those who don't seek treatment for their symptoms.
Health care can reduce absenteeism among the working poor, reducing prices for products and/or increasing a company's profit. There's a definite financial benefit to keeping the poor as healthy as possible.
None of these are the reason for universal health care.
The reason is mercy. The reason is that we should have mercy on those who are suffering. They, like us, are human. Like us, they suffer. Unlike us, they suffer more. And that suffering is not fair.
The cost of mercy will not likely be high. The benefit in decreasing suffering will outweigh the cost.
That is far better than fair.
With the Democratic candidates lining up to present their national health care plans, we might wonder what it will cost for everyone to be insured. Surely there will be some effect on the rest of us.
To be sure, basic health care coverage for all will mean longer lines in the waiting rooms of general and family practitioners. And there will certainly be an increased cost in either taxes or in premiums. So is it fair that those of us with access to health care be burdened with the costs for those who don't?
No, it is not fair. It is not fair that those who worked hard to get through school and get a job with benefits pay also for the benefits of those who may not have worked hard at school, or who may not have gone to college. It is not fair, but fairness is not the reason for universal health care.
There are self interests at hand. Although your wait at the doctor's office may be longer, the load on hospital emergency departments will be lighter as peoples' colds and influenza, stomach aches and fevers are cared for by a primary care physician rather than an ED staff. That means the waiting room at the hospital will be nearly empty when you arrive with chest pain or facial paralysis.
The cost of primary care is cheaper than ED care, so there will be savings there too. And many problems may be caught earlier, resulting in less drastic - and expensive - emergency care.
Crowded areas of poor people without health care access can be reservoirs of illness. The working poor may be unloading pallets of fruit, or washing dishes in your favorite restaurant, or delivering your newspaper. Although most businesses strive to keep their customers safe from disease, many of the poor are afraid to miss a day of work due to illness. And if the local viruses don't scare you, consider this: the most likely place for an epidemic of bird flu, or a terrorist's engineered disease, is in those who don't seek treatment for their symptoms.
Health care can reduce absenteeism among the working poor, reducing prices for products and/or increasing a company's profit. There's a definite financial benefit to keeping the poor as healthy as possible.
None of these are the reason for universal health care.
The reason is mercy. The reason is that we should have mercy on those who are suffering. They, like us, are human. Like us, they suffer. Unlike us, they suffer more. And that suffering is not fair.
The cost of mercy will not likely be high. The benefit in decreasing suffering will outweigh the cost.
That is far better than fair.
