A national health-care system would benefit our economy through job creation and improved business conditions. It would enable entrepreneurs to create businesses by removing the expense of private health insurance and the risk of not having insurance. Most
of our job creation is in the small-business sector.
Our large businesses would be better able to compete internationally without the huge burden of subsidizing medical insurance for employees and their dependents. Our manufacturing sector has been declining for decades. While it is difficult for us to manufacture products as cheaply as third-world countries, we should be able to compete with developed countries. Here are some examples of products I’ve purchased recently: printer cartridges from Ireland, an aluminum ping pong table from Germany, and small hardware items from Denmark. These are countries with a standard of living at least as high as ours. A significant difference is that they have national health care.
A national health-care system is referred to by several terms: single-payer, public option, public insurance. It is simply Medicare for all citizens who chose to use it. All developed nations in the world—except ours—have variations of a national health-care system. People who chose not to participate could buy medical insurance from a private company.
Paperwork for health-care providers would be greatly reduced because they would be dealing with one system, rather than many. Insurance companies don’t provide any health care for anyone, but they are taking 30 percent of our dollars spent for health care.
Transitioning to a national health-care system could be implemented by allowing states to set up their own systems or incrementally decreasing the age at which people are eligible for Medicare. By either method or a combination of the two, a health-care system could expand at a manageable rate until it is available to all citizens who chose to participate.
This article appears in Oct 1-8, 2009.
