Why is it that when discussing the need for health care reform, it seems to boil down to a simplistic formula on both sides of the debate? Over and over again, I hear the same tired arguments; namely, that any sort of reformation of our health care system will lead to socialism and the ruination of the American way of life or conversely, that health care reform must lead to a single-payer system controlled and administered by the federal government.
Let’s start with this: health care reform is not an either/or proposition with extremes as options. What we have right now is a system that is unfair, uneven, overpriced, and is crippling any possible true economic growth in this country.
If we are to have a real debate over how to reform health care, let’s start by exploding the myths about it coming from both sides of the aisle.
Myth #1: Universal access to health care is the same thing as single-payer health care
Of course this isn’t true. Having access to health care is a human right and a civic responsibility. Note carefully: I did not say having access to government-paid health care. Nor did I say access to employer-paid health care. What I said was that access to health care is a human right, and it is. I don’t know a conservative, liberal, libertarian, or independent alive who would see someone bleeding in the street and leave them there without at least calling an ambulance so they could get medical care and attention. Why? Because as human beings, all politics aside, we understand that when we are ill or injured, we need professional health care providers to intervene and help us heal. That isn’t political; it’s human. The issue has never centered around whether the sick or injured should be cared for; it has centered around who pays for that care.
We live in a nation where access to health care services is selective. If one is employed by an employer who still offers health insurance, there is access. If one is independently wealthy, whether insured or not, there is access. However, those who are unemployed or unable to work do not have access to providers or medications, particularly the group that I call the “unemployed middle class”, of which I am one.
Creating a pathway for everyone to have access to health care should be something every conservative embraces, because it could take the primary burden away from business and place it on the individual, if it’s structured properly and fairly.
Myth #2: Health care reform will destroy capitalism
This one always amazes me. On the payer side of the equation, if the responsibility shifts from employer to individuals with cost containment measures in place to limit out-of-pocket costs, we have not suddenly become a nation of socialists. Anyone who really believes that should have a close look at what socialism is before saying such a thing. Regulating health care is not the same as public ownership or administration.
Myth #3: Health care reform can be achieved without tort reform
Ask any health care provider and they’ll tell you that it cannot. The ones who win now are the lawyers. Malpractice insurance is crippling providers and hospitals, and services are rendered with attention to the lawsuit rather than the patient. Tort reform has to be at the center of any reform effort, and shouldn’t be ignored or minimized by either party.
Myth #4: Electronic Health Records (EHR) will streamline health care
This is a myth right now, because all proposals on the table do not require an open standard for records portability. There is a real danger that if this is not done properly, it will cost American taxpayers far more than it will save. Congress, take heed. This cannot be ignored or made into a political issue.
Myth #5: Health care should be managed by individual states
This is the least effective and most discriminatory way to manage health care, and most importantly, it places an undue burden on states offering broader access than the minimum. Right now, each state sets their own criteria for access to health care reform, subject to very broad federal standards. Those criteria include how pre-existing conditions are treated, who can get insurance, brackets for determining who is eligible for Medicaid, and expansion of current COBRA requirements. As a result, one can be covered for pre-existing conditions in Minnesota but not in California. It follows that Minnesota’s population will include many who, driven by the need for affordable health care, migrate to that state because they are able to get it there.
We are a nation of people who need to deal with the very real possibility that our economy will stagnate and die if we do not wrestle with the question of health care reform, accept that it will require an investment of taxpayer dollars, and begin to talk about the best ways to accomplish what must be done.
Health care reform must be a national standard. Access has to be universal and yes, required for every United States citizen. Reforming health care means that businesses, particularly small businesses, will be able to survive and thrive as the foundation of a new, more solid and secure economy. Survival of small business is a closely-held conservative value that should serve as the foundation of a place to agree on health care reform, rather than a reason not to reform it at all.
