It is time for universal health care

Affordability is the current buzz word. Being able to afford decent health care is an issue that is only going to get more difficult. Everyone should be able to access quality health care regardless of where they live at a price that is consistent nationally. This would be a tax-funded system providing free health care to residents that have a documented health care card.

—No out-of-pocket costs: Covers preventive wellness, medication, mental health, dental, vision, surgeries, hospital and long-term age care.

—National digital integration: Electronic records to enhance efficiency.

—Quality training: Rigorous standards for professionals.

—Strict medication rules requiring prescriptions for common drugs.

—Use of robotics and AI for common surgeries.

—Telemedicine with e-records to ensure accessibility.

—Advanced treatment for chronic diseases.

—Continued funding for quality research.

Arguments against this would be possible wait times for nonemergency care, staff shortages without aggressive recruitment, a loss of choice in doctors and facilities, and cost of underwriting the system.

In regards to the counter arguments, many of us already have to deal with choices, staff shortages and cost. The biggest issue is really the inequality of care versus cost. The average life span is currently in the 80-85 year range, with “Boomers” being the current largest group.

Underwriting the cost is a hurdle that can be managed through the federal, state and local government. If the average household income is $85,000 before taxes, adding 3% to the current tax burden seems reasonable if you have no out of pocket for health care. That would be $2,500 on average.

There are approximately 168 million people in the work force, which would generate $420 million. Of course this is based on averages, so the lower-income folks would pay less with the higher paying more.

The cost should be matched by the employer. Again, smaller companies would pay less and larger more. Many employers have some sort of insurance plan employees pay into. The problem is not all plans are equal, with many individuals paying outrageous premiums that only buys catastrophic coverage, or they roll the dice, hoping they can just pay out of pocket at a local health care facility. They often choose to let things go, which leads to bigger issues that eventually take them out of the work force with long-term illness and possibly premature death.

Currently, the federal government contributes 32%, households 27%, private businesses 18%, and state and local adding 16%. Government has to be involved because they can control the costs of the increases in health care as well as the appropriate standards.

The counter argument is government involvement versus less involvement. The idea of sending individuals a check for health care does not resolve costs. The other issue is receiving a check does not necessarily guarantee it would go toward health care when a family has other pressing needs. The federal government's participation in funding should be based on revenue collected.

Ed Gallagher

Coshocton