America Should Provide Free Health

¶ … America should provide free health care to all Americans. This paper will explore the difficulties of providing free health care to all Americans, while looking at health care statistics, such as infant mortality, and the high cost of American health care. It will discuss the political aspects of free national health care. It will also look at why creating a free national health care policy is essential to the country and the health of the country's people.

The United States of America is one of the richest nations on Earth, and yet, many of its citizens go untreated when they are ill because they cannot afford health care. America leads the world in many areas, from housing to food production and industry. Many people feel the country leads the world in health care too, but studies and research show that is simply not the case. Professors Cal Clark and Rene McEldowney write, "Rather, U.S. health care appears quite inefficient in the sense that it is much more costly than its comparatively poor outputs would justify" (Clark and McEldowney 133). Their study, which looked at infant mortality rates, the number of hospital beds per 1,000 population, health spending per capita, and the government's share or percentage of total health spending, found some interesting outcomes. They discovered that America's infant mortality rate was higher than most other countries, while health care spending was higher, too, which excluded many members of the population from quality health care (Clark and McEldowney 133). The professors continue,

In terms of national health systems, the United States is something of an "exceptional case" in a pattern that cuts across conventional expectations. It has by far the highest health costs in the developed world (or anywhere else for that matter). Yet, it scores quite poorly on infant mortality; and it has by far the most privatized system which would be expected to hold costs down (Clark and McEldowney 133).

Thus, Americans pay more for health care when it seems they should be paying less, and yet many of them receive sub-standard health care. This seems like a system that is simply not working for most Americans.

Many health care professionals and physicians support a national health care program. Thousands have joined Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), a group dedicated to creating a "universal, comprehensive Single-Payer National Health Program" ("Health Care is a Human Right"). Some of their research cites "43 million citizens with no health insurance, many more with only limited coverage, skyrocketing health insurance premiums, malpractice costs, long-term care issues, and relatively poor health indicators, when compared to similar industrialized nations" ("Health Care is a Human Right") as some of the reasons they support free national health care. Their solution is a balanced solution of private health care delivery with government financing. This keeps the large health care companies from continuing to make skyrocketing profits, while ensuring all Americans receive the same, high-quality health care. They also believe that everyone, regardless of race, religion, or income, deserves health care - it is a basic human right. The government has a responsibility to its citizens to keep them healthy, and creating a free national health care program would help ensure Americans are more healthy and happy.

Unfortunately, the fight over free nationalized health care has become a political battle rather than a health care battle. Before the 2004 election, President Bush made his position quite clear on health care. A reporter notes, "The president said the best way to maintain 'the best health care system in the world' is by 'resisting efforts that are happening in Washington, D.C., to say the federal government should be running health care'" (Curl A04). Unfortunately, as other studies have shown, America does not enjoy the "best health care system in the world," as the infant mortality statistics and other statistics clearly indicate. Americans pay higher prices for drugs, hospital stays, and doctor visits than many other countries, and yet, we have poorer health rates in several areas. This indicates that there are health issues in the country that must be addressed, and that many people are actually quite far away from the "best health care system in the world."

High health care costs are another problem associated with American health care. Reporter Curl continues, "Mr. Bush said competitive forces in the marketplace - primarily by giving Americans more choice - is the best method for bringing down health care costs. Another way is to give people who can't afford health care access to facilities other than emergency rooms and hospitals" (Curl A04). However, if the government does provide other facilities, ultimately these costs will be born by the taxpayers. As a health care crisis continues among the elderly, the poor, and the uninsured, the government will continue to create more of these facilities, and costs will continue to mount. If that is the case, it seems simpler to nationalize the entire system, allowing everyone to enjoy the same, high level of care, rather than creating special facilities dedicated to the poor and the uninsured who cannot afford health care access.

There is another clear benefit to creating a free national health care system. Studies indicate that medical liability costs are lower in countries with nationalized health care, such as Denmark, Canada, and Sweden. In fact, some of these countries also provide a blanket Medical Protective Association that is much less costly than medical malpractice insurance, and awards for malpractice are limited. This could help control the skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance rates that are driving many physicians out of business and adding to health care costs (Felice and Lambkros 1).

Clearly, providing nationalized health care would be costly, but American's health concerns are costly now. Several studies also indicated that government health care costs would actually decrease if America adopted a single-payer type of health care. A study citied by the PNHP notes, "If the U.S. were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs [10% of health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage" ("Health Care is a Human Right"). Rising health care costs are keeping even more Americans from seeking health care, and if the government could actually save money, while providing better health care for everyone, it seems a logical solution to a long-term problem in the country. Americans are living longer than ever before, and that means more health care for elderly Americans in the future. This will mean more spending for government programs such as Medicare. This could also be avoided with a national health care system that provided good health care for everyone.