Health Care: Your Money or Your Life (part 2)
Today the Congressional Budget Office reported the results of its study on the Obama health plan, concluding that the proposal, when featuring a non-profit, government run component known as "the public option," would lower the deficit and cost the country $30 billion less than had been originally predicted.
Coming in at $871 billion over the next 10 years, the tally surprised many. The report was music to the ears of supporters of the public option who have fought for its inclusion in final legislation despite intense opposition by the insurance industry and the Republicans in Congress.
It has always been a bit hard to believe that money would be a legitimate stumbling block as the United States struggles to emerge from the Dark Ages and give its citizens access to universal health care. Critics of the Obama administration have consistently blasted Democratic proposals for health reform as being too expensive, insisting that the proposal for a public competitor to private insurance would bring disaster to American health care by instituting a European style of "socialized medicine." They have pointed to Canada, to France, to the United Kingdom as examples of the poor quality of health care that results from a system run by the government; never mind that UN rankings and other data clearly show these countries to have systems that are less expensive, deliver superior care and provide better overall health outcomes for citizens; never mind that the proposed public option would be only one component in a larger scheme for reform that would still include private insurers.
When speaking about the capacity of the United States to afford universal health care, the important point that is often ignored is the size of the gross domestic product in the U.S. compared to other nations that do offer their citizens universal coverage. The GDP measures the market value of all goods and services from a nation in a given year. The United States has the largest economy in the world; at $15 trillion, its GDP is greater than the next three largest countries (Japan, China and Germany) combined. All of these nations have some form of universal health insurance. The health care system in France, the next largest on the list, has been consistently rated as the best in the world. Somehow these other, smaller nations have managed to find the resources to guarantee health care to their populace, while the United States has not.
It is important to remember that, beyond an initial infusion of money to get the program started, the public option will not be financed by public funds but by individual premiums. The insurance industry, fully understanding how easily the American public swallows misinformation, has provided a diet of distortions and outright lies about a "government takeover" of health care in order to shipwreck reform.
No matter how reform is financed, one has to wonder if those who have sat on the fence in this debate have ever asked themselves the simple question: what is more important, your money or your life? In the wake of the CBO report, one has to wonder when American citizens will sit down and simply do the math.
Today the Congressional Budget Office reported the results of its study on the Obama health plan, concluding that the proposal, when featuring a non-profit, government run component known as "the public option," would lower the deficit and cost the country $30 billion less than had been originally predicted.
Coming in at $871 billion over the next 10 years, the tally surprised many. The report was music to the ears of supporters of the public option who have fought for its inclusion in final legislation despite intense opposition by the insurance industry and the Republicans in Congress.
It has always been a bit hard to believe that money would be a legitimate stumbling block as the United States struggles to emerge from the Dark Ages and give its citizens access to universal health care. Critics of the Obama administration have consistently blasted Democratic proposals for health reform as being too expensive, insisting that the proposal for a public competitor to private insurance would bring disaster to American health care by instituting a European style of "socialized medicine." They have pointed to Canada, to France, to the United Kingdom as examples of the poor quality of health care that results from a system run by the government; never mind that UN rankings and other data clearly show these countries to have systems that are less expensive, deliver superior care and provide better overall health outcomes for citizens; never mind that the proposed public option would be only one component in a larger scheme for reform that would still include private insurers.
When speaking about the capacity of the United States to afford universal health care, the important point that is often ignored is the size of the gross domestic product in the U.S. compared to other nations that do offer their citizens universal coverage. The GDP measures the market value of all goods and services from a nation in a given year. The United States has the largest economy in the world; at $15 trillion, its GDP is greater than the next three largest countries (Japan, China and Germany) combined. All of these nations have some form of universal health insurance. The health care system in France, the next largest on the list, has been consistently rated as the best in the world. Somehow these other, smaller nations have managed to find the resources to guarantee health care to their populace, while the United States has not.
It is important to remember that, beyond an initial infusion of money to get the program started, the public option will not be financed by public funds but by individual premiums. The insurance industry, fully understanding how easily the American public swallows misinformation, has provided a diet of distortions and outright lies about a "government takeover" of health care in order to shipwreck reform.
No matter how reform is financed, one has to wonder if those who have sat on the fence in this debate have ever asked themselves the simple question: what is more important, your money or your life? In the wake of the CBO report, one has to wonder when American citizens will sit down and simply do the math.
Comments