How to Value Human Life in the United States
By Danielle Austin, Contributing Writer
Opponents of universal health care often claim that we don’t have the money to provide adequate health coverage. However, this concern does not begin to constitute a fair argument against universal health care. Almost every other industrialized, liberal democracy has implemented a successful universal health care system. Not only do Denmark, France, Australia, Japan, and myriad other first world countries have universal health care, nations such as Cuba, Oman and Sri Lanka do as well. Surely, this country has economic resources superior to those of Sri Lanka.

We have the resources. It is a matter of how we are using them. Surely, if universal health care was made a priority, resources would be redirected. However, even if they were redirected, would they be properly utilized? In the status quo, money is often wasted due to disorganization in social services. People do not receive proper attention or care; they wait for hours in lines and fill out paperwork that never gets filed or read due to mere disorganization. Meanwhile, the ailment that caused them to apply for state medical coverage in the first place worsens. My experience with the Department of Social Services (DSS) in New Haven, Conn., demonstrated to me that employees are often overworked, overwhelmed and underqualified; paperwork is routinely misfiled or unread and resources are utilized in the most inefficient way possible.

My experience with DSS was simultaneously illuminating and depressing. I drove up to the DSS in what is known as one of the more dangerous parts of New Haven. As I ventured outside my grandfather’s truck, two cars sped by, chased by police. The department reminded me of the DMV in many ways, except that there were a large number of children inside. A few older individuals were there too; whites, Hispanics, blacks, a woman with a cane, a man with two children who rushed out of the office—complaining about the paperwork in his hand as he left. Cartoons were being played on a TV. This was to keep the children busy while their mothers waited and filled out what was literally a book of paperwork. Even after that was completed, they had to wait for an agent to see them. Everyone was upset, most stressed and tired, and some confused—one woman didn’t speak English and had difficulty being understood. After a long wait, the applicant’s aid was determined and, hopefully, would be received quickly. All told, the New Haven DSS was a tragic exercise in chaos, a spectacle made worse by the fact that peoples’ lives were in the hands of this inefficient system.

Indeed, the state of the system is such that many who have access to free health care don’t know they can access it, or choose not to. This may be because of a lack of advertisement, or a dearth of clarity about what is and is not available. Furthermore, for those not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, the system itself remains vastly inaccessible. Thus, a vast part of the middle class finds itself without recourse in the case of an emergency.

The process of becoming eligible for aid, between the number of people left out and the massive bureaucratic inefficiencies, demonstrates the urgency of the need to overhaul the system. However, the actual level of care that patients receive on state aid is substandard and disgraceful. Patients are directed to go to clinics that are determined to be available. Often, these clinics are quite out of reach, geographically, for people who cannot afford cars, or gas. In addition, the clinics are often understaffed. I recently phoned nearby clinics in Holyoke and Connecticut. When attempting to make an appointment, callers may be put on hold for five minutes or an hour, be hung up on, get stuck listening to oldies transmitted through a thin, crackly frequency, transferred repeatedly and essentially shuffled around. Simply scheduling an appointment can take days or more. When someone does answer, they may not be accepting new patients or have any appointments available for months. However, one cannot get too upset with these practitioners. The dentists and doctors who find themselves in this position are good and overworked professionals who can’t squeeze another patient in, because colleagues in their field do not accept state insurance. Indeed, most providers do not accept state insurance. This makes finding care difficult for some and almost impossible for others—even when they get insurance. In other words, that card for which they waited hours in line is worthless plastic to most dentists and doctors.

If better coverage, as well as faster and oftentimes better care are given to the upper class versus the lower class, then are we not living in a classist society where the essential quality of your very life and body depends upon your wallet? The human body is not a commodity. Should life and death decisions be made on a calculator, by an insurance company or based on the amount of money you have in your bank account? Surely, human value is more than merely monetary. Tragically, in this country and this health care system, it is not.

There are multiple ways in which a universal health care plan can provide citizens with the dignity they deserve, while remaining fiscally responsible. Inevitably, individuals would pay higher taxes, probably out of payroll. Despite these higher taxes, the removal of monthly insurance bills, high co-pays, expensive pills and large amounts of fine print to read when getting expensive medical or dental procedures done will more than offset the cost. Businesses wouldn’t have to pay for health insurance for their workers. This would save citizens and businesses money, even considering the increased yearly contributions to Uncle Sam.

There is no question that, if everyone were participating in universal health care, the system would vastly improve. If senators, representatives, mayors and even the president were using the same clinics, dentists and doctors in the same system as the rest of Americans, disorganization and poor treatment would not be tolerated. Insurance companies might lose out, but very few would weep for the magnates of that often predatory industry. The question, here, is whether we should subordinate the economic windfalls of a few CEOs to the pressing needs of millions of uninsured Americans. So long as we, as Americans, remain committed to the principle of equality for all, to countenance anything but universal health care is hypocritical.

Issue 03, Submitted 2008-09-17 02:33:24