The two predominant political clubs on campus, CC Democrats and the CC Republicans, faced off in a U.S. healthcare debate last Friday sponsored by the Student Government Association.
The conversation was animated; the number of audience members exceeded Cro’s Nest capacity.
Professor Monika Lopez, though not part of the debate, was present and seemed pleased with the results.
“We had a good turnout, especially for a Friday night,” she said. “It’s good to see these issues being discussed with enthusiasm. If only Congress could work this well.”
CC Democrats and Republicans ultimately agreed on one aspect of the healthcare issue: the moral precept that suffering should not be allowed to continue.
In their closing statements, the Democrats reiterated the need for reform and urged the audience that people in the 19-26 age bracket are the fastest growing segment of the population, and thereby should not only insure themselves but also push for the cause.
The Republican side concluded by referencing the famous children’s story, “If You Give a Mouse a Cookie,” through which they assured the audience that to give people what they want will lead to dependence, lack of initiative and, ultimately, unhealthiness (according to one debater, this unhealthiness looks much like communism).
According to a chart produced by the World Health Organization in 2000, the current healthcare system of the United States is ranked 37th out of 190 countries – the ‘Fifty Nifty’ fall just behind Costa Rica. Conversely, as of 2005, the U.S. is ranked second for percentage of the GDP spent on healthcare. France, which enjoys the highest ranked healthcare and the third-highest life expectancy, spent roughly two-thirds of the money the United States spent in that same year.
The issue for many is purely fiscal: our country cannot afford to maintain the course, especially given the choppy economic waters we are sailing through.
Indeed, cost seemed to be the focus of the CC Republican debaters. They focused on tort reform: nearly 81 billion dollars, they claimed, was being lost to malpractice suits and other frivolous litigations.
“This is nothing to shake a stick at,” they contended.
The purpose of tort reform is, according to Karl Rove, “to eliminate junk lawsuits that drive up the price of health care.”
According to the CC Republicans, roughly three-quarters of doctors believe fear of lawsuits affects their practice negatively; the Democrats insist that only two percent of malpractice suits actually result in the doctors having to pay.
In either case, the CC Republican side suggested that reform would have to come in many forms: pushing for out-of-court settlements, easing licensing regulations to let various treatments be practiced by more of the medical sector (doctor’s assistants, nurse-practitioners, pharmacists, etc.). This would hopefully save doctors from bearing the full weight of these junk lawsuits.
Tort reform ought to wait, the CC Democrat debaters claimed. For them, the important issues were the erasure of preconditions (one of which is “being a female”), the ease of access to quality care (which Americans both “want and deserve”), and the problems of cost.
For example, the Democrats claimed, a visit to the emergency room might cost about $1,000 — an off-putting stipulation that forces many to wait until a condition becomes unbearable before they visit the hospital.
If treatments were available more widely, and at a lower cost, then conditions can be treated early, which saves money in the long run.
Of course the issue of government intervention was raised. The Republicans suggested that, were the government to intervene, incentive for profit would disappear.
America, they posit, “makes machines for humans” – they boast the finest medical technology industries in the world. Such development ought not to be hindered.
CC Democrats expressed concern about one face of government interference: capping the prices for pharmaceutical goods. Capping would inhibit the companies as close as “Pfizer, across the river” from researching and producing drugs at competitive rates.
This capping is used by the Canadian government; the method’s failure, they claim, is evident in the fact that Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, recently traveled to the United States to undergo medical treatments. Notions of intervention must be “considered, and considered greatly.”
The Democrats argued that pharmaceutical companies often engage in the practice of “pay to delay,” by which they discourage their competition from producing generic versions of drugs at cheaper prices. It is practices like these, they claim, that inhibit development, and, as such, they ought to be regulated.
The discussion later introduced the issue of “right versus privilege.” The Republicans posited that the people should not be forced to have the right to healthcare, that the opportunity should be provided but not mandated; to infringe on civil liberties would deny the “principles of America.”
The Democrats replied that not only is healthcare a right, but that it is the correct move for our country. A healthier workforce means higher production and economic growth, and “hardworking Americans deserve hardworking healthcare.”
Numerous references were made to the 46 million uninsured Americans. This number was later reduced, owing to the claim that roughly six million are illegal immigrants and five million more are residents without full citizenship status.
Of those remaining, 86 percent claim they are in “good or excellent” health and do not seem to require insurance for something they do not currently need.
Several important questions were asked in a session following the debate, including the “moral imperative” of providing healthcare, even if only to the estimated few millions of the uninsured who simply cannot afford it.
The issue of the public and the private also emerged during this discussion, with reference to well-functioning, government-run institutions like police and fire departments. These services are often utilized solely in emergencies, and, therefore, do not require contractual pre-agreement – the fireman does not ask for proof or residency before putting out the fire. It was suggested that perhaps the emergency room could become a similar public institution, while other medical services would remain private.
Lopez believes that the nature of insurance companies is the largest issue of the national debate. Having 30 percent of their profits go toward administrative costs “is not efficient…you would not run a restaurant this way.”
Because they are protected from monopoly laws, the magical hand of the market is often brushed aside, so that a company like Blue-Cross in California might raise its premiums by 30 percent without fear of a competitive backlash.
Thomas Jefferson once asserted that “it is the responsibility of every American to be informed.” Given the scale of the healthcare question, our task as students is to not only to understand as much as we can, but also to care about the issues and about our national future.
But don’t take my word for it. As Jefferson also notes, “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper.”
