1st
Susan Harris 
2nd
Ben Bruckev 3rd
Trisha Thurmond
by S. Harris, Wallace High School, Wallace, Idaho
The government's role in health care in America goes back to the very beginning of America itself. The Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, and accepted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, was our government's first step in establishing itself and making its' promise to care for its' people. The following lines of the Declaration of Independence best describe this promise:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
This line from the Declaration of Independence informs me that everyone has the right to life. The next quote of the Declaration of Independence states the reason I believe that it is the government's responsibility to take care of its' citizens' health care costs.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among man." From the two quotes stated above we can now see that from the very beginning of the American government, the government has told us we have the right to live and that the government was created to secure that right to life.
The next passage from the Preamble to the constitution also proves that it is the government's responsibility to take care of its' citizens.
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America."
My position on the topic of health care is that it is the government's responsibility to provide adequate health care to each of its' citizens through a national health care system. The following shows that I am not alone in this belief.
Senators Mitchell, Kennedy, Rockefeller, and Riegle, Democrats, proposed on June 5, 1991, a national health insurance bill to Congress. The American Medical Association acknowledged, on May 13, 1991, that American medical care requires substantial reform. An Oregon experiment with Medicaid prioritizing is being watched closely. This state's attempt to provide basic health coverage to its entire population could serve as a model for an eventual national health care plan. Some large corporations are coming around to the view that a regulated national system of health care is the only way to reduce increasing prices, decrease cost shifting and require free-riding businesses to pay their fair share.
The National Health American Bill builds on the present system of employer provided health insurance by mandating that businesses provide a coverage or pay a tax, the so-called "play-or-pay" approach. People without private insurance would get federal coverage. Costs would be restrained by an annual process of setting health budget goals, but those goals would not be binding. To achieve the gains of a single-payer system, a play-or-pay approach needs tight cost-containment features. Insurance companies, which would be put out of business by a single-payer system, could be enlisted in the play-or-pay coalition. The Bill's sponsors believe that once their system is in place, its' logic would lead to direct regulation of cost.
As medical technology becomes more complicated and expensive, doctors seek to free themselves to make decisions and purchase new equipment as they see fit. Hospitals seek to keep beds occupied, and they compete on the basis of the most uptodate facilities and services. But insurance companies which pay most of the bill, naturally seek to restrain costs or pass them alone. The federal government shifts costs to the part of the system that is privately insured. Insurance companies then respond by clamping down more tightly on providers and by denying coverage to people or groups likely to get sick. The end result is that 37 million people have no insurance and that even the middle class is suddenly vulnerable to huge increases in premiums and out-of-pocket charges. The average American with only a high school diploma makes approximately $5 dollars an hour. This works out to be about $600 dollars a month after taxes. Now after you pay your rent, make a car payment, auto insurance, buy groceries and pay other miscellaneous bills, most people don't have enough money left over to pay for health insurance. Those who do have health insurance are only minimally covered; any major expenses would not be covered by their policy. This may be the reason that 89 percent of Americans feel the United States health care system needs fundamental changes or complete rebuilding.
Private businesses are feeling the pinch of the health care cost problems also. Big business shoulders much of the burden by paying approximately 28 percent of direct health care costs. Some large corporation tend to support fairly radical changes to the current health care system. Others prefer to shift costs onto their employees. Large corporations are coming around, however, to the view that a regulated national system of health care is the only way to reduce increasing prices, decrease cost shifting and require free-riding businesses to pay their fair share. Coca-Cola is one of the few companies left in the United States that still offers full health insurance to its' employes even though its' costs are rising 27 percent each year.
"What is truly frightening," says Richard B. Spitznass, benefits chief for Georgia Pacific Corporation, "is the inability of any company, even on as large as ours, to contain health care costs."
My case is very logical. With my solution to America's health care problems people who can afford health insurance get it, others may be covered by their employer, anyone not covered by on of these two will be covered by the government single-payer system.
With the current health care system, an example of what could go wrong follows. You are a single person living in a small apartment. You've just bought your first car which you are currently making payments on. You work for a local small business that offers no health benefits. Because it is a small business you only make $5 dollars an hour. This small wage along with everyday expenses leaves you with less than $20 dollars a month for personal expenses. You are involved in a freak accident that puts you in the hospital. The hospital and doctor bill comes to way over anything you could ever afford to pay. To get out from under you must either sell everything you own or declare bankruptcy.
This same story could have a happy ending if national health care was enforced. The hospital and doctor bills would be covered and you would be able to become a productive citizen of society.
In opposition to my argument many people believe a national health care system is impossible.
One argument in opposition suggests that doctors and hospitals would resist a single-payer system as a new source of income. Doctors and hospitals, however, would resist cost-containment such as what is currently beginning to be enforced on them.
Another argument would be that the insurance companies would be put out of business. I say that they could be enlisted in the play-or-pay system, and used to their advantage.
The next argument claims that American politics is too corrupt or incompetent to manage a national health insurance program without gross wastefulness. I offer Canada's government as an example of how corruption has nothing to do with it. Canada has been shaken by defense procurement and influence-peddling scandals that has left Canada's Medicare untouched.
Yet another argument made is that America's undeniably more numerous poor would overwhelm any national health insurance system. I agree that, yes, additional spending would indeed be required to cover America's uninsured, but the amount is dwarfed by the administrative savings alone.
The final argument is the claim that the medical care received in this system would be undesirably poor in access and quality to the current medical care received. Once again I use Canada as an example. Canadians find it easier than Americans to obtain most forms of medical care, have more general hospital beds per person, stay loner in the hospital when sick, and use more physician services per person. Canadian single-payer system of medical care is better than America's current health care system.
The best solution to the health care problem, of course, is a single-payer system, supported by tax revenues, in which everyone would be insured, nobody would be excluded because of a medical condition, hospitals would have annual budgets and hence would not have to send bills, and doctors in private practice would bill the single-payer agency. This would not only provide security of coverage but it also would free doctors and hospitals from the endless paper chase. And it would provide greater autonomy for doctors to make decisions based on their best medical judgment rather than on the basis of what they could wring out of private insurers.
In review, my position of the topic of health care is that it should be the government's responsibility to provide adequate health care to each of its' citizens through a national health care system. I also suggest that if the government doesn't start being more concerned about the overall well-being of its citizens in the future, there may be no citizens for government to be responsible for. As I quoted in the beginning of the paper, the Declaration of Independence I do again now.
"That whatever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and institute new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."