Universal Coverage: A Personal Ambivalence

Tens of millions of Americans lack health insurance. Extending coverage to them has been a core goal of health reform proposals since the 1960s. President Richard Nixon offered a universal health plan in his first administration, but since then Republicans have hesitated to commit the nation to so costly an undertaking. Is it time to rethink? Should Republicans accept universal coverage as a goal?  We posed this question to NewMajority’s contributors.

I have mixed emotions on this.  As a young couple, my husband and I had a hard time getting our son insured because he had a heart murmur.  When there was a furor over Clinton wanting universal health insurance, we were able to get coverage.  I also remember the days when for a 20 minute doctor’s visit we would pay $150 – which to me is outrageous.  Part of the greed we now see with Wall Street.  Because medical care means life and death something needs to be done to keep costs down and make sure that people can get coverage – especially for catastrophic illnesses.

With that said I know for a fact that foreign dignitaries as well as others come to America when they need medical attention.  I also would never choose Kaiser for a health plan and know for a fact that some of my friends have had very bad experiences with Kaiser. I want to know my doctor and let him have a history of knowing me as well.

There is also the personal choice issue.  Do people not have health insurance because they can’t afford it or chose not to pay for it. What I mean is where do they live, what kind of car do they drive, where do they shop for clothes, do they go on vacations?

There has to be a fair compromise but so far I have not seen a plan that I could endorse.

To read other contributions to this symposium, click here.