Obamacare Proponent, Emmett O’Malley:

“What we face is above all a moral issue; that at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.”

-Ted Kennedy

There are two key aspects in the battle for universal health care: a moral one, and an economic one. As highlighted in the quote above, the moral aspect consists of whether or not we will take a path towards compassion through utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number, or a path of greed based upon Adam Smith’s warning: “the vile maxim of the masters of mankind: all for ourselves and nothing for other people.”

What we’re doing right now isn’t working. It’s that simple. Despite the fact that the United States spends more money per capita on health care than any other country in the world, we fail in almost every major health category; we’re 41st in infant mortality, 33rd in life expectancy, and, according to the World Health Organization, 37th in overall health quality. Despite these dismal statistics, the mass delusion that we have the best health care system in the world seems more oppressive than ever.

This misapprehension stems from a lack of critical analysis. For instance, there is a five-year discrepancy between the life expectancy of the poor and the life expectancy of the rich in the United States, and a seven-year discrepancy between blacks and whites. However, from a Willistonian perspective, everything seems just peachy.

Well, you might not think it’s so peachy if you were one of the nearly 50 million uninsured citizens, or one of the two million people who annually declare bankruptcy because of out-of-pocket medical expenses. Oh, and for those of you who claim “Obamacare” is ruining our country from an economic perspective, I’ve got a couple of bon mots for you: First, it’s projected that, if we continue our inadequate system – the USA is the only industrialized country without universal medical care  – 25% of America’s GDP will be tied up in health care by 2025; second, if “Obamacare” were repealed, our federal deficits would increase by $109 billion over the next ten years.

Why all the bitterness about the Affordable Health Care Act? Frankly, it stems from our country’s recent tendency to benefit the plutocrats. It wasn’t always this way. In the mid-20th century, the United Automobile Workers Union president Walter Reuther approached the President of General Motors, Charles Wilson. Wilson had a tremendous amount of respect for Reuther as a leader, but when Reuther demanded a comprehensive national health care package for all Americans, Wilson had a conniption.

Wilson vehemently opposed Reuther’s proposal for one huge reason: he needed his employees to be job-locked. In other words, their health-care benefits had to be tied to employment. If GM’s workers were to have guaranteed benefits, they would have the freedom to leave GM without losing their health coverage. Wilson wanted his employees to be locked into his new form of peonage. Thus, by limiting worker mobility, Wilson was enhancing the profitability of his company; and by advocating for this lack of a safety net, Wilson, and, therefore all of those people who don’t want to help their fellow humans out, was exacerbating the wealth gap – “all for ourselves and nothing for other people” (read: selfishness and greed).

Selfishness is not a virtue. Heck, even prisoners are guaranteed health care under the Eighth Amendment. Shouldn’t all citizens be afforded the same right? And, for all you selfish careerists, if all workers earned a livable wage with adequate benefits, we wouldn’t need all those pernicious “handouts.”

This is not to say that the Affordable Health Care Act is the panacea for what ails American health care, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. So what are you going to do about it, privileged prep-school students? The granddaddy of capitalism – Adam Smith – would want us to be moral not vile. After all, sharing is caring!

Obamacare Opponent, Maddie Hatch:

America is in need of a change in the healthcare system. Every American should have access to affordable healthcare; however, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was pushed through the legislature, is not a sensible plan to achieve the bipartisan goal. When looking at the bill economically, the demand skyrockets while the supply plummets due the increased number of insured people and the decreased numbers of doctors and medical suppliers. While taking some of the doctors’ paycheck away does not seem all to bad on the surface, there is a dangerous affect on the supply of medical care in the United States.

Healthcare needs to be changed, but the controversy is over whether or not the government overhaul of healthcare is the right response to the need. While a main goal of the bill is to provide universal health insurance, 31 million people will remain uninsured by 2023 (Congressional Budget Office). The Act cannot provide the adequate attention and changes needed to raise the level of the healthcare system in America.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PPACA, fiscally does not work. Applying the simple law of supply and demand, it shows implausibility within the program. 17 million people will be added to the health care system steeply increasing the demand. Due to set prices from the act, profit margins decrease leading to the lowering of supply. Medicare in Massachusetts, often referred to as Romneycare, is a clear example of the detrimental consequences of a form of public healthcare. It has cost Massachusetts three billion dollars and is predicted to go bankrupt in three years (Forbes). While President Obama initially believed that the premiums for the middle class family would go down, recent data has shown otherwise.

One study concludes that the health care act will increase underlying premiums on average by 41 percent (Forbes). The excessive cost is due to all of the free procedures handed out by PPACA: “that means free check ups, free mammograms, immunizations and other basic services” (Obama). However, the money for these “free” procedures must come from somewhere. P.J. O’Rourke famously stated, “If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it’s free.” Nothing is free and while the portrayal of free healthcare sounds great, the realistic consequences are higher premiums for the middle class. Health care under the law will be expensive and extremely inefficient due to the large demand and staggeringly low supply.

The United States has the best medical care in the world. It has developed eight out of the top ten best advancements in medicine in the past 20 years (Dr. Wenger). Medical care has advanced because the best and brightest minds go into medicine. They make on average more than the average annual salary in America, but they work hard for their money. The government will now control the amount of money a doctor is able to make.

The government now controls the health care system, putting the proverbial red tape up all around hospitals.  One study stated that nine out of ten doctors would not recommend the profession to a family member and, due to the new health care law, 43% of doctors say they are considering retiring in the next 5 years (Senger). Medical advances thrive on competition and by taking away the reward of getting paid large sums, there will be minimal desire to be the best when a doctor could be average and make the same amount. America thrives on competition but socializing medicine creates an atmosphere against competition leading to a fall back in the quality of healthcare.

While helping the uninsured and providing affordable medical care to every citizen of America is a primary bipartisan and agreeable goal, the Patient Protect and Affordable Care Act does not provide the adequate care that is desired. The Act will lead to “substandard quality, rationing of care, a demoralized health care work force, and inadequate investment in research, education, public health, and health promotion” (Dr. Wenger). While looking at the economic realities of the is not emotionally riveting the statistics and predictions from non partisan groups need to be considered. The United States cannot afford the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.