The death of Sen. Ted Kennedy brought a powerful blow to the dialogue for health care reform. Kennedy a staunch advocate for the poor and oppressed throughout his time on Capitol Hill lived long enough to see the beginnings of his finest project access to affordable health care for all Americans but died too soon to see it come to fruition. Now the health care reform bill faces a serious re-write that would radically weaken its ability to truly effect change in our nation’s health insurance system with the public option in serious danger of being removed. As his life’s dream struggles on the floor of Congress what should we take into this debate from Ted Kennedy’s legacy?
The simple lesson is this: Health care should be about people not profits.
Those using capitalism as a defense for the status quo within the health care system are using a flawed argument. In recent years we have seen what can happen when an industry is allowed to operate unfettered in the name of capitalism only this time people’s lives – not just their monetary investments – are at stake. Defending the marginalization of the poor in the name of profits for big business is a morally problematic position and one that will ultimately bring the industry to ruin.
Yes health care must be sustainable to work effectively. In fact the proposed health care reform bill is more sustainable both economically and ethically than the current system. By creating the public option and the Health Insurance Exchange which would enable people and employers to better compare and access health insurance choices the market for health insurance would become more competitive and therefore more affordable not to mention sustainable.
Those who compare the proposal to the Canadian or UK health care systems are misled. In fact the proposed bill would create a system closer to the one used in Switzerland. With a mixture of private insurance state options and subsidies the Swiss system has developed a way to balance both quality and equality making sure everyone is covered yet preserving some competition to further development and excellence of care. The Swiss are among the most satisfied in the world with their health care and the current bill could move the United States in a similar direction.
Ethically the United States has an obligation to ensure that all of its citizens have access to the basic necessities for survival. The United States is the only developed nation without a national health care plan. According to White House officials approximately 46 million Americans do not have health insurance and many others struggle because of premiums that are too high and coverage that is insufficient. We as a nation spend more money per capita on health care than any other developed country yet are not any healthier for it. Our health care system is expensive and inefficient with the effects of this hitting our nation’s poor the hardest.
The health care reform bill would instead mandate that all U.S. citizens purchase health insurance would offer an affordable public option to compete with private insurers and would ensure minimum standards for health care coverage offered by both private and public insurers. It requires that employers either offer or subsidize employee insurance plans and provides assistance for small businesses to comply. It also includes provisions for those who cannot afford health insurance and those who are between jobs and prohibits insurers from rejecting people with preexisting conditions. In sum it creates an industry where the people’s health is the true bottom line.
Yes many health care professionals and insurance companies oppose health care reform. Why? Because it will cut into their profits. But let us not forget that the same motivations drove southern plantation owners to oppose the end of slavery and still drive modern companies to justify the exploitation of impoverished workers. We in no way believe that these justifications are morally acceptable today. Why then is it acceptable to defend the status quo of our health care system denying the rights of the people for the sake of lining the pockets of our doctors insurance and pharmaceutical companies and investors? We should all stand up as Kennedy did and argue that it is not.