Single-payer insurance would cure nation's ills

By: Phil Jarrett

Posted: 9/20/07

From what I hear, the real world is a pretty nasty place. There are cubicles, idiotic bosses, bills to pay and mouths to feed. I am tempted to live forever in undergraduate idealism, but the real world swiftly approaches, and I have about seven months until I no longer have health insurance.

Being a college student soon to be uninsured, one might think my sniffling about health coverage would be silenced by Hillary Clinton's announcement of her plans for health care reform. After all, she was a pioneer of universal health care promotion in the early '90s with her Health Security Act. Also, the Washington Post recently reported her being the most trusted among Democrats on her views of our nation's physical well-being. The Post certainly did not contact me in that poll.

In 2004, Clinton said, "If we were to start from scratch, none of us, from dyed-in-the-wool liberals to rock-solid conservatives, would fashion the kind of health care system America has inherited."

Preach it, sister. Missouri alone had 771,690 uninsured citizens in 2006. Yet it is somewhat peculiar that Clinton would want to construct her reform on this pre-existing system that none of us would fashion.

The new plan would increase federal funding for programs for children and lower-income adults. The most significant portion of this new plan would require employers either to insure their workers or pay a tax. Small businesses would be encouraged to participate but would not necessarily be penalized for opting out. Insurers will be required not to turn anyone away on account of pre-existing conditions. On a first read, it sounds pretty good, but then my gut instinct kicks in, and I want to know why she is taking this route towards health care reform where we keep the same old insurers who have been mucking things up for years.

According to a recent study by the Institute for Health and Socio-Economic Policy, Hillary was the recipient of more health care industry donations than any Democrat or Republican presidential candidate. Although it might show the industry's faith in her ability to reform, it might show big insurance and pharmaceutical's faith in her ability to make superficial changes only. Although I am skeptical of her "insurance companies are people, too" response, I am not so paranoid as to think her a special-interest pawn. Rather, I think her plan is half-baked.

Clinton's new health strategy fails to tackle several key problems. First, employees of small businesses are still uninsured. Second, employers are going to have to bear the burden of insuring their employees. They might be capable but are going to have to balance what is economical and what meets this plan's criteria with what is in the employee's best interest. The final problem is a byproduct of this balance. Health coverage will not be uniform. Many still will be underinsured, paying considerable amounts for care outside of their basic coverage. In a nation where health-related expenses are the leading cause of bankruptcy, this is unacceptable.

All these issues stem from the assumption that basic human health should be for-profit. Look where it has gotten us. I am neither anti-corporation nor anti-profit. An industry that looks to maximize the income that it takes in and minimize what it has to pay out is doing smart business. However, when this industry sucks up 14.9 percent of our nation's gross domestic product and wreaks havoc on our nation's health, smart business does not equal ethical business.

It is high time to wise up. A single-payer health system prioritizes American health and not the wallets of stockholders. Critics of such a system cite Orwellian fears of tyranny and federal bureaucracy, but currently private bureaucracy looks to spend less on patients and earn more. High taxes are no fun, but neither is a chunk of my paycheck going to insurance companies that do not offer good coverage. I would feel much better knowing that less of my hard-earned money is being spent solely on doing a better job of keeping me and my fellow citizens well.

Presidential candidates such as Dennis Kucinich know this can be done well and are far more deserving of our attention than Clinton. Simply because she talks more about health care than the other candidates does not mean that she is the most qualified.