spicershealth

I recently read an opinions article that was sent to me by a fellow today.com blogger. This opinion looks at the feasibility of National Health care in the US from the historical perspective of the British National Health Service. It provides an interesting perspective and points out important details, such that it took 50 years for England to establish national health care and the conditions under which they did so, were very similar to the challenges we see in the US.

http://www.newsflavor.com/Opinions/How-England-Gave-Health-Care-to-The-Whole-Country.491221

Some differences in terms of population size and other factors do create a few questions. However, if we are already investing tax dollars into Medicare, Medicaid and now health coverage for all children, what’s wrong with funding health care for our growing middle class?

Can we look at this in comparison to public education in the US? Education is a right in this country regardless of income level, and is funded by tax dollars, either through property taxes or other government dollars. If those who criticize the public education system have the means to send their children to private school they can do so. Given this, wouldn’t a national healthcare system be the same? This would mean additional taxes for the wealthiest Americans, however do you hear a lot of complaints about those living in areas with high property values, funding schools which ultimately are nicer and more well equiped? Not so much.
                                                        

So, wealthy Americans are being asked to pay more taxes in order to support something which inherently is a fundemental right. In this country we alot our citizens the right to education and safety (via law enforcement), and we must do the same for healthcare. Ultimately, increasing access to care will improve the health of our nation and allow Americans to be more productive, save employers money on covering expensive health plans and stimulate our economy. My hope is that this way of redistrubiting wealth is not permanent, yet it is sustainable. Many of the wealthiest Americans attempted to distribute wealth through the private sector, however this was through loans, which have created millions of dollars in debt and was through a market economy that relied on demand which has been drastically diminished through rising costs and inability for most Americans to acquire these goods. Additionally, this so called “redistribution” was fueled by greed and in many cases delivered under false pretences and high risk negotiations.

Thus economic stimulus by way of injecting dollars into the public sector will ultimately help to improve the health and welfare of Americans and allow for individual sustainability. As Obama has said, if this hasn’t worked by the end of his first term he won’t be re-elected. However, unless and until we step up to the plate there will be no way of ensuring that this form of recovery will lead to a future where most Americans can contribute to their own well being when they are able to pay taxes, stay healthy, and afford to accomodate for themselves during times of need. As the saying goes, it takes a village, however this can not be applied until fellow Americans join together as villages, ultimately leading to a better, stronger and healthier America.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS