Is a Privatized Health Industry Obsolete in a Global Economy?
In 2005, 8.3 million children in the United States had no health insurance—that's 11.2% of the entire population of children at that time. Uninsured children are less likely to be up to date on their immunizations and more likely to miss school because they receive no treatment for sore throats, ear aches and other common childhood illnesses.
There are government agencies like Medicaid for families with income at or below the poverty level in income and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) for families with income at twice the poverty level but who do not qualify for Medicaid. But SCHIP, jointly funded by the States and the Federal government, seems to be fading away. Some states have raised premiums to compensate for the economic downturn, so families just above the poverty don't have access to that program now. And Congress may not renew SCHIP anyway.
Then there are fading employer benefits because they can't or won't afford rising medical costs. "The most potent force behind the recent increase in uninsured children, experts said, is the decline in employer-sponsored health insurance as rising costs prompt businesses to raise premiums or cut coverage."
We've got quite a dilemma. Privatized medical services are priced out of reach and the premiums for medical-insurance plans to pay for those services are priced out of the reach of individuals, employers and even the government. It would be anti-capitalistic to suggest that medical services become government sponsored. Besides, those who get extraordinarily rich from providing medical services would probably spend more money on lobbyists to campaign against government control of the medical industry than it would cost to provide doctor visits for 8.3 million children who can't go to school because they suffer with sore throats, ear aches and other common childhood diseases.
Which is worse: to be anti-capitalistic about the health industry or to be anti- the future generation of Americans?
There are government agencies like Medicaid for families with income at or below the poverty level in income and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) for families with income at twice the poverty level but who do not qualify for Medicaid. But SCHIP, jointly funded by the States and the Federal government, seems to be fading away. Some states have raised premiums to compensate for the economic downturn, so families just above the poverty don't have access to that program now. And Congress may not renew SCHIP anyway.
Then there are fading employer benefits because they can't or won't afford rising medical costs. "The most potent force behind the recent increase in uninsured children, experts said, is the decline in employer-sponsored health insurance as rising costs prompt businesses to raise premiums or cut coverage."
We've got quite a dilemma. Privatized medical services are priced out of reach and the premiums for medical-insurance plans to pay for those services are priced out of the reach of individuals, employers and even the government. It would be anti-capitalistic to suggest that medical services become government sponsored. Besides, those who get extraordinarily rich from providing medical services would probably spend more money on lobbyists to campaign against government control of the medical industry than it would cost to provide doctor visits for 8.3 million children who can't go to school because they suffer with sore throats, ear aches and other common childhood diseases.
Which is worse: to be anti-capitalistic about the health industry or to be anti- the future generation of Americans?
