The political will to address the health-care crisis may finally be maturing. Last month a New York Times poll indicated that 64 percent of respondents favored health coverage for all adults, and a majority of those polled said they would be willing to pay higher taxes to provide it.
A single-payer system would not prevent individuals from buying added insurance. But the larger insurance pools would spread out the liability risk and allow the system to cover those who are now excluded. It would also facilitate preventive care.
In the past, Americans have said no to a national health system out of fear that it would lead to long lines and restrict choice in services. An evolving single-payer system like the one proposed by Edwards could allay those fears by providing greater efficiency, lower costs, and ample choice. The challenge will be to convince enough voters that the higher taxes required for such a program really would lead to better-and cheaper-health care.
I've had my differences with Roman Catholic positions on a variety of health care and bioethical issues over the years. There is, however, substantial common ground to be found on the necessity for achieving universal health care coverage, even if there will be a few significant fights over precisely what services are to be included. I'd rather be having those fights, difficult as they may be, in the context of a broad base of care for all, than spinning wheels while scores of millions in this country remaining substantially uninsured. With all the self-interested forces arrayed against meaningful health care reform, religious voices have a powerful and necessary role in the chorus demanding urgent change.
No comments:
Post a Comment