Critique on the Current Status of American Health Care
Although Dr. Sean Masaki Flynn's speech may have taken place 4 years before the national outrage sparked from the murder of UnitedHealthcare's CEO Brian Thompson, it is clear that the health care crisis in the United States still remains unfixed. Those on medicare in the United States have been suffering silently, forced to wait months just for their turn to receive treatment from doctors with questionable status. Those with private health insurance policies pay a premium for speed of treatment with no guarantee on the quality of their health care interactions as there is little incentive for medical professionals to leave a lasting impression knowing either way they will be paid. No matter your socioeconomic status in America due to the fact that we all rely so heavily on a third party payment system we are all at a great disadvantage in terms of quality and safety of our healthcare. It is my opinion that this is one of the great shortcomings of America as we have let large insurance companies gain far too much economic power for far too long; leading us to place financial success above the quality of human life. Although health care reform has long been a conversation in American politics often being part of a candidate's platform, little to no change has occurred since the 1950s. If Dr. Flynn can come up with several viable options for health care reform just based on his own research, perhaps we should more closely consider the reason why America has had little to no movement towards true health care reformation. I think it's a stretch to assume that politicians are simply uneducated on the matter, as being uneducated on your own policy is a choice when you have been entrusted with that much power. I think this is simply more of a reflection on the blurred lines between health insurance companies and U.S. government institutions and should make us question the true economic power they hold over U.S. policy.
A Personal Take on Dr. Flynn’s “Cure”
In his speech Dr. Flynn suggested that it would be highly unlikely to get the U.S. to agree to adopting mandatory health savings as FICA already collects money from every paycheck to put towards social security and removing even more money from one's paycheck would not be seen favorably in the eyes of most citizens. Although this may be correct in some regard I would actually counter this argument and say that there is a way that mandatory saving could be implemented and marketed to the respective political parties in a way that would be an admirable compromise. Singapore's medisave program is genius because it ensures that individuals are saving for life's most critical expenses and offers a reward for their savings through interest that their medisave account accrues. Just as Dr. Flynn pointed out, this interest and continual savings means that as one ages and therefore requires more expensive care they have the means to afford proper treatment as they have been saving for it all along and their account has been growing in interest as well. In the United States Social Security payments ensure that those above 65 will have guaranteed medical insurance, however if we started mandating savings like Singapore then the U.S. government would have to shell out much less money in the form of medicaid meaning we could lower the overall FICA social security cuts that are taken out of our paychecks. Here is what I propose, currently 6.2% of your paycheck is taken for social security, however if we cut that payment in half and say that 3.1% of your paycheck will go towards social security and 3.1% will go into a mandatory medisave account I think we could reach agreement. I believe this would work for several reasons. First off, since citizens already agree to 6.2% of their paycheck being taken from them I think they will find comfort knowing that they won't see a true change in the amount of money leaving their account every month. Additionally, since healthcare expenses are not distant like retirement they technically have more immediate access to more of their money as medisave is accessible where social security is not. Secondly, although this may sound like a massive pay cut for the federal government it really is not. Since citizens are given the opportunity to save and earn interest on their medisave savings this means that when the government is usually providing full health insurance to those over 65 they will be paying much less as older citizens now have accounts to fund more of their healthcare expenses. Plus giving citizens more autonomy over choice of care leads to lower medical costs in the long run meaning the U.S. government will ultimately pay less even if they still have to cover 100% of medical costs for some.Additionally, since the U.S. government will be saving significantly on their medicaid expenses this will allow for them to cover the interest that these accounts accrue over time, plus only 3.1% of a paycheck means that interest won't be too burdensome of an expense. Lastly, just like in Singapore this has huge potential to increase the quality of our healthcare system as U.S. citizens now feel they have more financial control over their medical expenses and therefore choose better health professionals. This also allows for those currently on medicare to have better access to medical professionals as we have allowed for those in lower income families to receive poor healthcare painting this narrative that if you don't have enough money you're not deserving of care. Now I have great confidence that this can be properly politically marketed as well. Just as Dr. Flynn pointed out Republican politicians are usually in favor of the U.S. government decreasing their overall “handouts,” as this money could be spent on the national defense budget. I would also argue that since this allows individuals to have more control over their medical expenses and “earn their care” in a way this would be seen favorably by republican politicians as it can be painted as Americans working for what they need not simply being given it. On the other hand I think Democratic politicians will see this favorably as they will see this as an overall increase in the quality of life both for those in lower socioeconomic situations, as well as the greater population as we move towards placing an emphasis on human quality of life not profit. Furthermore, since this will decrease the overall cost of health care eventually it will allow those who have always been buried in medical debt to afford the same care as everyone else.