Dear Editor,
Given all the effort and ink that's been spent on trying to get a universal
national health insurance program set up without success, maybe it's time
to recognize that nobody really wants one.
That's not as radical a suggestion as it might seem at first; though
"nobody" is probably an exaggeration. Some members of the insurance
industry may well hold the opinion that the expansion of the 35% of the
health insurance market they now control represents an opportunity to make
a lot more money, especially if they can come up with some way to make sure
that really sick people get care paid for in some other way.
The fact remains that healthy people don't need insurance and insurance is
not what you want to rely on when you're sick.That's because insurance is
for events that are unexpected and relatively rare.
What people do want is prompt and proper medical care whenever and wherever
they get sick or injured. What they'd like, in addition, is ready access to
whatever medicines are available to prevent illness, especially
communicable diseases and infections.
What they'd also like is a reasonable guarantee that the medical care they
get, but have no way to judge for themselves beforehand, will be the right
kind. Which means there should be someone who monitors the providers on an
ongoing basis.And since people who pay out money have a natural interest
in what they are paying for, having medical care paid for by a national
program might even save money by doing double duty.
Since insurance salesmen and adjustors aren't trained to provide any of the
above, setting up a national health insurance program would seem to be a
lost cause. What we need is a national medical assurance program or a MAP.