I would like to emphasize something I alluded to in part 1. To often, the health care debate gets mired in details that have little to do with the reality that must be faced:
Initially, at least, HEALTH CARE BEING APPLIED UNIVERSALLY TO AN ENTIRE POPULATION OF ANY GIVEN COUNTRY IS A MORAL DECISION , NOT AN ECONOMIC ONE.
Like other state run social programs in the U.S, Universal Health Care is not designed to turn a profit. Its' goal is to provide affordable medical insurance that will not cripple an individual or families ability to provide for other basic necessities. This idea stems from the primarily 20th century concept that government has an obligation to provide for, to a certain extent, the basic needs of a portion of the population that cannot do so on its' own. However, unlikecurrent social programs, Universal Health Care in the U.S differs from other social programs in one major aspect- ELIGIBILITY. As it stands today in the U.S, there are three main groups that have medical insurance.
- Those who have high enough incomes that make attaining quality health care plans a non-issue.
- Private health care plans that are partially or wholly subsidized by an employer.
- Individuals and families with an income that falls below a certain level, which is set by the federal government.
These above groups leave out a substantial portion of the population in the U.S.
This segment of society is the real reason that Universal Health Care, or "Obamacare" is being instituted. The middle class is the target group that will benefit the most, because they do not lie at either end of the financial spectrum in terms of income. Since paying health insurance premiums will be done on a sliding scale basis, all Americans will be covered in a way that does not end in financial hardship.
See pt. 3 in a future issue.
(ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON 7/20/2013)