Oldschool analysis of the Healthcare system (this was way back when there were lots o' candidates)

Health Care in the United States as a Social Institution

Socialization

There are many factors to be considered in one’s voting. In the case of the average undergraduate student, issues may include right to life, the economy, and diplomatic affairs, as the students’ concerns often focus on more philosophical topics. In recent years, however, the issue of health care in the United States has become more pronounced across the board. The average college student’s socialization is mainly focused in two areas. The first is the family, which aims at supporting the student in becoming an independent adult. The second is the workplace, or future workplace, which will most likely focus the course of the rest of the student’s life. Both of these agents of socialization have been altered to an extent by the recent health care crisis.

The manifest function of the average family in the United States is multifaceted. In the developmental years, a child is to be provided with role models, as well as an environment in which the child feels comfortable to explore their personal goals and desires. According to Henslin, the family establishes “our initial motivations, values, and beliefs” which then shape who we become (Henslin 78). As that child grows, the family is supposed to provide a means for the child to develop more fully into a responsible adult. The ideal is that this person will eventually be able to cope with life’s challenges away from the basic family unit and, in turn, start his or her own family to continue on the cycle. In latent terms, the ability to accomplish this task can define how effective the family structure is.

In most health plans, one of two things happens. A person may be able to remain on his/her parents’ health insurance for as long as full-time student status in maintained. The second option is that a person is allowed to stay on the family health plan until the age of twenty-two, regardless of education status. This may prompt some students to continue their studies in order to keep the health insurance until they have a secure job. This takes away from the idea that the student is moving towards independence because they remain dependent, sometimes long after legally being an adult, on their parents’ health care plan. Additionally, the parent may not clearly draw the line between adolescence and adulthood for an offspring that is still dependent on his/her coverage. One concern already in the United States is the lack of a rite of passage in our culture. Unlike some country, the time when a person becomes an adult is very unclear. While certain ceremonies, such as Bar Mitzvahs, declare being an adult at a certain age, the time when a person is expected to live on their own or carry their own financial weight. If a person is dependent on his/her parents’ health plan, the line between being a child and an adult is only further blurred, making for less responsible, accountable adults in the future.

The workplace is supposed to help define a person’s self-concept. When a student attends college, he/she most often majors in a field that reflects a future ambition. Finding a suitable career is key in the aftermath of college. It enables the student to pay off loans and be a “successful” adult. Internships or other employment experience during the college years may enable a student to attain a better job upon graduation, and thus make a better salary, which is the determining factor of success in our culture.

In years past, considerations taken by a student when choosing a field of study and later a place of employment may have included salary, interest, and status. Now, one may also see health care coverage as a minor, but influential, facet of choosing a career. For instance, one may have desired to teach at the parochial school level because of the type of students, atmosphere, and availability of jobs. However, it is probably less expensive to get health insurance through a public school system in which some of the costs are covered by tax dollars. Venturing into private business practice becomes more risky because there is less chance of health care benefits and the like. Additionally, the idea of forgoing college all together becomes reprehensible, as most blue collar occupations without certification will not pay for medical expenses beyond those required by workmen’s compensation.

In addition, if a student is offered a job, he/she may think twice before accepting it. The economy at the moment demands not only that a person’s commute is not impractically expensive, but also that the person will be secure in their job should that person take ill. Factors such as maternity leave and sick days become more crucial for those who will not be covered by a company plan. If that student hopes to one day start a family, he/she will have to work where coverage can be extended to the family instead of just the employee. Also, in new families with more than one working parent, the question of coverage brings up the question of dominance-“Who needs to be working so our doctor’s bills can be paid?”
Candidates

Health care has become an exceedingly hot button issue in the 2008 presidential elections. Two democratic candidates, Barack Obama and John Edwards, claim they know how to “fix” the health care system to be non-exclusive. Edwards suggests subsidizing the insurance industry and putting more money into preventative care. Obama, on the other hand, suggests regulating the industry and covering children’s health insurance. Both these approaches have their strengths and weaknesses.

The Edwards approach puts the bulk of the insurance responsibility on employers. Under his plan, the consumer will have more local options in choosing an insurance company. Eventually, the plan is that the government will “require all American residents to get insurance” (Edwards). The Edwards’ plan clearly targets voters of the middle and lower class. One question that comes to mind is “How will employers be able to afford the insurance?” The economy is fragile as is, with less and less small businesses being started each year. This campaign does not take into consideration the affordability of insurance on a bulk scale because it does not suggest any form of regulation in the insurance industry.

Additionally, the college student seems to have no place in the Edwards plan. There is some mention of health care for minors (those under the age of 18) and that the employer will cover employee medical cost. Most college students are over the age of 18, but not employed full time or in an industry of serious consideration. Also, many students would not be going for procedures that are not considered “necessary” by the medical industry. For instance, testing for sexually transmitted diseases are considered optional procedures and often are expensive if not covered by insurance. This brings extra stress to the already distressing process of finding out if one has an STD, a situation that can cause humiliation and fear in people.
Some of the statistics in the Edwards argument are questionable at best. For instance, the statement “At least 100,000 patients die each year due to medical errors”, which is apparently substantiated by the Institute of Medicine, does not define what the “errors” are or what situations these errors are involved in (Edwards). Also, until Edwards gets the feelings of the employers as well as the average family, his health care plan can not be considered balanced. Finally, some of the ideals in the campaign, such as preventing against defective medication, cannot be achieved until other areas of the government, such as the FDA, are revamped and improved.
Obama’s method is more focused on making the insurance industry accountable for monetary decrease. The claim is that because there near trusts in the insurance industry there is a need to increase competition in the field. Additionally, the cost of medicines and employers’ insuring their employees. The main concept of the plan is regulation and restrictions placed on the insurance market. This plan would be more accessible by the college student population, but some qualms are still involved. For instance, Obama suggests that most of the tax money allotted for healthcare be used to treat chronic diseases, such as diabetes. While this is useful, very few students go to the doctor for this kind of treatment. One time injuries and the like would not receive as much funding. Additionally, Obama claims that he will cut down costs, not completely remove them. This means that there will still be some financial hardships for students in attempting to get health insurance. Fortunately, some students will be covered, as there are options that keep kids insured until they are 25.
Obama’s claims are amicable enough to the American populace (health insurance employees excluded), but he does not lay out a clear plan as to how he will create these changes. Additionally, some of his figures seem to be off, such as the claim that over 133 million Americans have a chronic disease of some kind (Obama). Overall, the statement on healthcare that Obama has provided is an ideal which has very little possibility of success if means are not taken into account.

Our Plan
The first issue in fixing the health care system is funding national health insurance. The most just manner of doing this would be instilling a flat income tax to finance government health plans. This would mean that those making the most money contribute the most and those making minimum wage will be paying a proportionate sum. This tax includes all fields, such as medical, government, and even clergy. Because socialized medicine is not an extraordinarily popular idea in the United States as this time, anyone who is paying into a private insurance company will receive a tax rebate at the end of the year, if he/she can provide the bank statements necessary to prove that he/she already has insurance. The rest of the country would buy into a national plan, in which all expenses for necessary medical procedures would be covered. However, the definition of “necessary” would be extended to include preventative medicine, disease testing, and prenatal and geriatric care. In addition, if mandated, psychological or other counseling would be considered a health expense.

Also, a physician will be required at all college campuses and public schools in case of emergency. The public school physicians will be covered by the property tax that pays for the schools. Those doctors at the collegiate level will be paid through an additional fine with tuition, not unlike room and board. The benefits of this are twofold. First, a doctor will be on hand to help the students in both emergency and general health situations. Secondly, it will create more jobs, which will both help the economy and motivate more kids to become teachers.

If there is a paid-for physician on campus, the likelihood that a college student will stay on his/her parents’ plan is less likely. This will empower the student for when it comes time to pay his/her own dues for the health care system. In terms of the workplace, if health care is not a concern a student can go on to pursue a career that is more fulfilling. In turn, that person is likely to be both happier and more well-balanced. This could aid to limit the amount of doctor’s visits necessary for psychosomatic ailments, such as those caused by stress, high blood pressure, and depression. Unlike Obama’s idea, we have a stable manner in which to fund our health plan. Unlike Edwards’ plan, we are able to cover everyone through the tax system. The only problem to be foreseen is that this plan may originally seem too communist or too idealist.