Namita Bhasin

I recently found this article on Twitter, which I use to narrow down my daily reading. I forget who tweeted it, but thank you VERY much for bringing it to my attention.

Healthcare is an issue I feel incredibly strongly about. My own family has been ridiculously burdened with insurance battles my whole life and now, as I begin to seek employment, my single largest concern is finding adequate coverage. Prescriptions and co-pays and specialized treatment and equipment are so expensive, and that isn’t even the end of it. Monthly premiums (whether paid by employers or not) are a huge and constant expenditure. It would be a horrible feeling to have to choose between buying medication and funding your retirement, or buying your groceries.

I knew the numbers (I forget them now, but you can find some here): Americans spend far more on healthcare as a portion of GDP than any other nation and that amount is rising. This is economically inefficient - those dollars could be going elsewhere, investing in expanding our economy, increasing trade with other nations, saving the world - but instead we are spending them on something that a lot of other modern nations have already taken care of. I won’t pretend to know a lot about the English economy, but my guess is it’s handling the cost of universal healthcare without taking too much of a hit or pissing off too many people. Please do tell me if I’m wrong.

I have never understood why employers are the conduit of healthcare in our society. It makes very little sense, as far as I can see. It discourages entrepreneurship and other independent pursuits, which I have always assumed to be a positive thing for American culture and economy. It is incredibly restricting and incredibly unfair to those whose jobs provide only the crappiest of coverage. Why should they be entitled to fewer benefits than others? Since when did wealth or things similar to wealth determine a person’s right to be healthy?

I believe health is an inalienable right. I do not think any external entity deserves to control it in any way. Only he can choose to take away his own health (and if he does, he is a damned idiot, but we won’t go into that today). Therefore, a person’s status - whether that be his social standing, income, his job, or his very state of employment - does not sensibly have any links to that person’s right to have the best treatment possible. Especially given this economic climate, it is unfair to further disadvantage those who have already lost their jobs. They should not have to worry about losing their healthcare too.

I have run out of steam for tonight, but I think I said most of what I wanted to say. I sincerely hope the incoming administration will act on this vital issue. They are in a position to do so, what with the major overhaul of so many other economic policies, and this one would cost so much less than the others. History has proven that running a deficit - even an inconceivably huge one - is the right thing to do when the nation is suffering, because those expenditures can have lasting positive effects on the lifestyles and mindsets of the American people. After all, how can you even consider worrying about anything else if you can’t be sure of your own health first?