Universal Health Care

A hot topic for debate recently has been about universal health care. After hearing a lecture about this topic from a finance professor the other day I came up with an idea that may alleviate this problem. The basic premise of universal health care is that a person’s health is a vital necessity much like food and water. Those who cannot maintain their own health become a burden on the system by spreading disease and using hospitals when they cannot pay for such service.

My solution to this problem is in relation to the recent hike in minimum wage, quite simply, cancel the increase. Rather than increase the minimum wage as planned we should instead require a minimum level of heath insurance to be provided by all employers to their full time employee’s. The next step would be to pass legislation that requires all citizens have that same minimum level of health insurance (if not provided by their employer then the person is responsible).

My personal view is that items such as insurance are the responsibility of a person. A person should be responsible for weighing the risks and rewards of insuring their property or their health and then make the decision and live with the consequences. The problem it seems is that the average person is incapable of making this decision and thus burdening the system. In most cases of necessities the choice of what to buy only affects that single person; if you don’t buy food then you starve to death, end of story. However if you get sick and are uninsured you cannot go to the hospital and the disease spreads affecting others. The principle is much the same as car insurance, it is not required so much as to protect the person who owns it, rather it is required in case that person causes an accident that affect others.

Unlike the European system of universal heath care in which everyone’s taxes go into a big pot and people abuse the system creating long wait times for medical care my solution eliminates those problems. Because what is being provided is health insurance if a person goes in for every little cold than their premiums rise and more comes out of their pay check, thus encouraging personal responsibility. Another advantage of this approach is that because the money is not all put into a big pot each person is responsible for their own heath and the cost is not passed on to another person. Lastly because those with more money can pay for premium service there are no long lines because heath care becomes a business rather than a service and businesses are far more efficient than government regulated bureaucracies.

In effect our current system is a pyramid model with premium heath care on the top, followed by moderate, low, and at the bottom none. What this policy would do is shift the whole pyramid up replacing the none with low, the low with moderate, the moderate with premium, and the premium with ultra premium. A question that some may ask is, why isn’t it better to go with the European system where everyone has a mid-range level of healthcare provided through taxes by the government. The answer to this was provided to me back in ’03 when I had the pleasure of sitting in on a discussion with former Surgeon General Richard Carmona. During this discussion the same question was asked the essence of the response was that in the United States people pay more for healthcare and prescription drugs than they do in Europe, however, it is this extra cost that allows the pioneering and research into new drugs and treatments in the United States.

Simply put I find that the solution I am suggesting offers America a solution to our health care problems without bringing in new problems such as the one’s faced in Europe. This concept is new to me and is a work in progress so if you have and ideas or suggestions leave a comment.