According to the insurance plan supported by many Republicans, a plan supposed to cover nearly 46 million uninsured Americans, an apple a day keeps the doctor away.
As the weeks drag into months and politicians continue to stall health care legislation, I keep trying to understand what – besides partisan bitterness – could cause such a delay.
Democrats and Republicans continue to argue about whether a new health care bill will cost Americans more or less. As our politicians battle over every comma and bullet point, I’m going to talk over the unnecessary cacophony and discuss the facts.
Most Americans without health insurance are less likely to have a consistent doctor, and they often go without screenings or other preventive care. Those without access to early prevention measures often acquire common ailments that can require costly procedures as the issue gets more severe.
Heart disease and stroke screenings cost between $60-$200. This cost greatly discourages the uninsured from using these and other preventative measures. However, if an uninsured person suffers a heart attack or a stroke, an ambulance takes them to the nearest emergency room. The average emergency room visit costs at least $500, and usually more than that.
A new health care bill with a public option would hit taxpayers hard. The $200 or so we saved by refusing to cover preventive screening will end up costing us far more in the long run and this situation is likely to repeat itself. Public hospitals cannot deny care, even to the uninsured, and uninsured individuals are twice as likely to visit an ER as insured individuals.
For example, let’s say that Bob is an uninsured patient who requires surgery to prevent future instances of heart failure; the hospital will deny Bob the surgery. Not only does this go against the Hippocratic oath, under which doctors promise to treat all who require medical attention, but it also means taxpayers will end up footing the ER bill when Bob arrives in a crisis. It is understandable that a hospital wants reimbursement for performing surgery, especially when some heart surgeries, such as valve replacement surgeries, cost approximately $20,000 to $30,000.
Consider that several ER visits end up costing taxpayers roughly the same amount and that each time Bob suffers a heart attack he misses several days of work. Eventually, he suffers such a crippling heart attack that he has to stop working. Now taxpayers are paying for Bob’s periodic ER visits and for other federal support, all because Bob was denied both the opportunities for preventive screenings and the surgery that would have cured him and allowed him to continue working.
Surgery might seem like an enormous expense, but it does not have to be. Optometrists working for the Himalayan Cataract Project restored the sight of nearly half a million people in some of the poorest areas in the world. The surgery they provide only costs $20, compared to the American cost of $3,000 for cataract surgery. If the willpower exists, surgeries can be made more cost-effective.
Developing new forms of surgery often takes years, so our best bet on lowering health care costs depends on preventing health failures from taking place. Canada has had nationalized health care since 1966. Since they made this important decision, according to the Candian Broadcasting Corporation, their health care spending has been about $5,452 per person per year, far less than our current system could ever come close to achieving.
Even if nationalized health care were to raise our taxes, it would support a more efficient system and reduce wasteful spending, something taxpayers are continuously demanding.
When buying car insurance, we look for better service for less money. Isn’t it time we apply this principle to health care? It is time to stop worrying about Obama’s “socialist” agenda and start following the facts. Pass the health reform bill; it isn’t brain surgery.
Ben Taylor ‘13 (taylorb@stolaf.edu) is from Hoosick Falls, N.Y. His major is undecided.




Be the first to comment on this article!