The Nevada Sagebrush

Nic Dunn

Anyone on the Left making the case for a public health option isn’t telling you the whole truth. They are leaving out details like cost, quality and potential negative effects. At the same time, those on the Right are also leaving many things out. They will try to convince you that Barack Obama is an evil communist bent on turning the United States into a communist country. Depressingly enough, both sides are wrong.

With 70-80 percent of Americans claiming to be satisfied with their current health coverage, what’s the problem? What are we trying to fix? First, there are about 46 to 47 million Americans who live without coverage because they simply can’t afford health care. The financial burden of those who can’t pay their medical bills after visiting the emergency room are already passed on to the rest of us. Hospital costs are high because they raise the prices to make up for bills that go unpaid. This new plan seeks to cover as many Americans as possible, which sounds wonderful … until you get the bill. This plan would cost over one trillion dollars. When all aspects of the bill are factored in, we will have increased our federal deficit by well over $200 billion. In a time of economic recession, how can we spend so much money? If we don’t change anything about how this country pays for health care, our nation will go bankrupt within the next few decades or so. From 1950 to 2000, the federal budget has averaged at about 20 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. Federal spending on three entitlement programs: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security grew from 0.3 percent of GDP in 1950 to over 7 percent in 2000. Estimates suggest it will reach about 14 percent in 2030. This means that by 2075, our country will be forced to spend more money on health care than on the entire federal budget.

The core problem is not coverage, whatever. It’s high costs. Many people say that health care must be taken over by the government, because the free market hasn’t done a good enough job. But a better, less extreme option is to keep health insurance companies, drug companies and hospitals privately owned and operated. Leave out the idea of a public option and, instead, the government can heavily regulate the health care industry. This would greatly reduce the government’s operating costs and private companies could still operate normally. The only difference is that the government would set certain controls, such as reasonable price caps, and end exclusion based on pre-existing conditions.

Before my friends even further to the Right than I am get up in arms about more government regulation, consider this: Public utility companies often are private corporations, but they are heavily regulated by the government. For example, Southwest Gas here in Northern Nevada is a private company that turns a profit each year, yet has strict rules put in place by the government. Power is an essential good that each of us needs. If a completely free market were able to control the distribution of power, then we would be at the risk of a monopoly which could raise the prices.

This is the same kind of monopoly that many people face when buying medicine or paying for operations. The large, profit-driven insurance companies know that often their customers have no alternative. Free market rules have failed at taking care of our health. Now let’s tweak the market by adding some government controls while still maintaining the private companies as the principle providers.

Health care is absolutely not an intrinsic right. Too many people are running around with the idea that they are entitled to many things from the government. Have we forgotten what the Constitution was founded on? We were given a very specific set of intrinsic rights and cheaper hospital bills wasn’t one of them. The government must do something about the health care crisis, that being health care’s steep prices. But this reduction in cost or any aid from the government must be viewed as a privilege of living in this great democratic republic, and not as a right that must be demanded.

Nic Dunn is studying journalism and political science. Reach him at perspectives@nevadasagebrush.com.

Related Posts:

• First Amendment should override offensive speech
• Constitutionality of health care reform debatable
• If immigration is on the agenda, Obama should look to Bush
• Newspapers’ tradition of publishing staff editorials muddles objectivity
• Police officers deserve to be respected, not demonized