Despite the seemingly endless barrage of articles
stimulated by the equally endless efforts of the Trump administration to kill
the Affordable Care Act, relatively little attention has been paid to why we
need health insurance in the first place. Liberal Democrats assert that health care
is a “right” and right-wing Republicans maintain that it’s a “privilege” and
that the only business government has with health care is to facilitate the
business of medicine. Some of the disagreement among the parties stems from
differing assumptions about just exactly what health insurance is for. Is it to
protect people in the event of catastrophe—a devastating car accident that
results in multiple operations and an extended hospitalization, or metastatic
cancer that triggers several rounds of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and
numerous hospital stays? Or is to maintain individual and public
health—ensuring that people receive immunizations and cancer screening, along
with treatment of high blood pressure and high cholesterol? We can begin to answer
the question by looking at the example of one group in American society with
universal coverage, the older population.
Medicare (and its sister program, Medicaid, providing
insurance coverage for poor people) went into effect on July 1, 1966, after
what was effectively a 30-year battle. Franklin Roosevelt wanted the government
to provide health insurance for everyone, but couldn’t make much headway with his
idea; Truman campaigned actively for health insurance for all Americans, but
his plan failed. Finally, after decades of wrangling, Congress and President
Lyndon Johnson agreed to begin with those in greatest need: people who were
either old, poor, or both. Medicare had the immediate effect of boosting the number
of older people hospitalized—suddenly, they stopped neglecting that chronic
cough that turned out to be lung cancer or decided to get medical attention for
that stomach pain that proved to be an ulcer. The likely effect (though to be
fair, it’s hard to disentangle the effect of Medicare from the effect of other
concurrent changes) is that older people began to live longer—a lot longer. But
what was really striking were the countless indirect ways in which Medicare
promoted the health of the entire older population: for example, by promising
to pay for effective technology, it stimulated the development of incredibly
successful interventions such as the pacemaker and the artificial hip.
When we
compare the health of Americans to that of their counterparts in other
developed nations, we find, rather shockingly, that everyone else is generally
better off than we are—if they are under 65. Among older people, the stark
differences between the U.S. on the one hand and Europe, Australia, and Japan
on the other hand vanish. The only plausible explanation is that older people
in the U.S. all have health insurance, rendering them comparable to older
people in other parts of the world.
From a population perspective, ensuring that everyone has
health insurance is desirable because health
is desirable. Good health is like education: without it, we are not
productive, creative, prosperous, or happy.
Health insurance is the means to
assure good health, so just as public education is a means to a skilled labor
force. Environmental regulations are the means
to assuring a safer, more healthful country.
From an individual perspective, health insurance is
critical to well-being because it’s the gateway to good health. It’s simply not
true that we can expect to stay perfectly healthy as long as we eat well,
exercise, and lead a virtuous life. We never know when disease will strike,
whether in the form of cancer or heart disease or a chronic neurologic disorder
such as Alzheimer’s disease or multiple sclerosis. No matter how cautiously we
drive, we cannot guarantee that a drunk driver won’t unexpectedly plow into us,
causing no end of medical problems if we survive the crash. Nor can we expect
that the cost of even routine medical care will be affordable: a plain x-ray,
used to diagnose pneumonia and other lung conditions, typically costs hundreds
of dollars when you add up the cost of the procedure and the cost of a
radiologist’s reading.
Everyone needs basic medical care and it’s not just “catastrophic care” that is expensive. Hence, the rationale for covering each and every American isn’t just that health insurance only works when everyone shares the risk—though it is true that the only way to keep premiums manageable is for everyone, the sick and the healthy, to have coverage, rather than confining coverage to those who are known to be sick and are guaranteed to use huge amounts of service. The rationale for covering everybody is that health care is essential if we are to have enough energetic, healthy, educated workers to provide the services and the innovations that we all need, and the only way to make sure that everyone has access to health care is to provide insurance.
Everyone needs basic medical care and it’s not just “catastrophic care” that is expensive. Hence, the rationale for covering each and every American isn’t just that health insurance only works when everyone shares the risk—though it is true that the only way to keep premiums manageable is for everyone, the sick and the healthy, to have coverage, rather than confining coverage to those who are known to be sick and are guaranteed to use huge amounts of service. The rationale for covering everybody is that health care is essential if we are to have enough energetic, healthy, educated workers to provide the services and the innovations that we all need, and the only way to make sure that everyone has access to health care is to provide insurance.
Health care, and the insurance coverage to pay for it,
isn’t a right, nor is it a privilege. But it is critical to promoting a strong,
vibrant, capable citizenry.
No comments:
Post a Comment