Skip to content
Sign up free
News

Why Both Parties Are Wrong About National Health Care

Why Both Parties Are Wrong About National Health Care

By Raul Carranza

2-minute read

Sign at a healthcare rally in Maine 2009 // Credit: Blip.tv

Sign at a healthcare rally in Maine 2009 // Credit: Blip.tv

A recent Gallup poll says only 26% of independents are satisfied with the work the government is doing on healthcare along with 53% of democrats and 7% of republicans. The dearth of cross-partisan enthusiasm for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or still further health care reform, dead in the water.

It's no secret that the ACA was heavily lobbied. As the Center for Responsive Politics notes, “During the course of 2009, the number of corporations, trade associations and other organizations that disclosed lobbying on the health care reform bills grew at an astounding rate. By the end of the fourth quarter when both the House and the Senate adopted versions of the bill, the number of clients had increased by nearly 300 percent, the Center for Responsive Politics found -- up to 1,541 clients.” Despite heavy lobbying efforts, it's become a very partisan issue.

The GOP has voted 35 times to repeal the ACA since 2011. Both sides have dug in their heels and decided that their solution is the right solution, but what if they're both wrong? What if the ACA doesn't go far enough?

In a recent article, Business Insider ranked the worlds best healthcare systems by country. Most of the 35 countries listed have a two tiered system. This means they have a public option where everyone can get their basic healthcare. Additionally, consumers have the choice of buying additional, private insurance if they're not satisfied with their coverage. While not perfect, this system gives the best of both worlds.

Still, how would we pay for it? In countries like Australia, the federal government institutes a 1.5% income tax. While that may seem like a lot, consider the following: “So if we put all of our health spending dollars into one giant insurance fund, we would be paying out an average of $8,290 for each man, woman and child in this nation. For that family of four, their share is $33,160. Think about what that means when the median household income is $50,000.”

This wouldn't be the bill the family sees, but rather the total amount being spent on behalf of the family.

If those numbers don't astound you, take a look at this graph, which compares total health expenditure between the US, the rest of the world and Australia. Source: World Bank

Source: World Bank

It's clear that, even with the ACA, we have a very serious healthcare problem in this country. This is obviously not the only solution, but it looks like a pretty darn good one. I'd like to hear what you think, what solution would you implement?

Tags: News

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Nonpartisan Issues. Diverse Perspectives.

Check your inbox and click the link to confirm.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Set the canonical URL of your copy to the original IVN article (the HTML we give you includes the tag).
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Why Both Parties Are Wrong About National Health Care

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us