Health Care Is

A Human Rights Issue

To the Editor:

I would like to respond to Scott Reiss’s letter titled “Health Care Bill Is Wrong In Principle” [Letter Hive 8/7/09].

I fail to understand how the proposed health care bill is wrong “in principle.” A government’s responsibility should not be to solely exist for the purpose of aggressively pursuing interests in politically weaker countries or for excessively parading around its ethnocentric philosophy. It is, or should be, a government’s responsibility to take care of its citizens. The US government already provides “socialized” hospitals, a postal service, police and fire rescue services, as well as public schools which are paid for by local taxes. In addition, private options of each of these institutions are also available. Why shouldn’t there be a more expansive public option for health care? In fact, federal health care options already exist in the form of Medicare and Medicaid, which are very popular and more cost-effective than private insurance options.

While the United States has a high quality emergency care system, the health care system is far too expensive and antiquated. The United States is the only industrialized country on Earth that does not offer universal health insurance, and according to the 2005 UN Human Development Report, the US leads the world in health care spending, but statistics show that countries which spend substantially less on health care have healthier populations and lower infant mortality rates.

The plan that Mr Obama proposes can be considered an “Americanized” system of health care which works to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to receive coverage through a mixed system of public and private health care options. It would actually strengthen employer-based coverage, while creating a National Health Insurance Exchange program, which would sell more affordable health insurance plans to those who are not satisfied with their employer-based coverage, or cannot afford any private option. Employers would be required to either provide health insurance or contribute money to a public insurance plan for its employees. In addition, it would allow flexibility in embracing state health reform initiatives, such as employer wellness, childhood obesity prevention and disease prevention programs, as well as granting each family savings of $2,500 annually by improving health information technology. Most importantly, under this plan, one does not have to give up their employer-based health care coverage if they are satisfied with it, and having a public option available would essentially increase competition for private insurance companies, therefore decreasing the costs of private insurance options.

The statistics are stark. Currently in the United States, over nine million children are uninsured, and 18,000 people die annually simply because they are uninsured and are unable to afford the care they need. Over 50 million Americans are uninsured, and this includes hardworking families, their children, the self-employed, and college students. This is not simply a social issue, it is a human rights’ issue, and it is time that this crisis be addressed, rather than claiming the self-entitled “liberty” as an American to sit around and do nothing.

Monica Strzelecki

6 Settlers Lane, Sandy Hook                                      August 17, 2009