Body Attachment

If ever there were a single subject that highlights the need for some form of universal health care, it is the practice of "body attachment." It goes by different names in different states and areas, but basically it is the procedure whereby hospitals request the arrest of people who have missed one or more court hearings on the payment of past due medical debts.

The practice is considered so awful that none of the largest credit providers will use it: Sears & Roebuck, Ford Motor Credit Co., etc. I would have less sympathy for someone arrested for skipping out on payment for a lawn mower or a new car. But there is a fundamental difference between consumer debt and medical debt. As one patient advocate puts it: "If it is a car or a vacuum cleaner, they will simply repossess it. What do you want them to do? Give the heart valve back?"

I discovered this issue in a rather sympathetic piece in - of all places - The Wall Street Journal (subscription required).

Again, while this practice by hospitals is worrying - especially when practiced, apparently, by many non-profit hospitals - it is only a symptom of a wider, more insidious problem: the growing ranks of those without health insurance. And because large health organizations can negotiate lower service fees for their members, the 43 million people without insurance are charged much higher prices for services, exacerbating an already horrible situation.

There are lots of places to read about the benefits of a single payer health system. Google the term. You'll also find lots of arguments against. The arguments against often have to do with the cost - which I believe will be manageable. There are studies showing that reduced duplication of just administrative costs could actually save the overall American health care system billions of dollars per year.

Where I believe arguments against universal/single payer health systems fail is on moral grounds. Our country is the richest, most powerful state to ever have existed. We are rich - in every sense you can use that word - beyond compare. And we refuse - it's not that we are unable - we refuse to care for those who have less than we do.

Why?

Two words have been used to scare people away from universal health care. The first word of this duo is an old boogey-man of a word; fear of which was fueled by what was once the Soviet Union. The second word is just along for the ride - but when used together with the first is made to seem somehow evil. Many conservatives cannot even see these two words together without crying out in disgust and horror. What are those words? Socialized Medicine.

You can argue semantics forever without getting to the bottom of why those words are so freighted with bad meaning. I would say that there is a difference between a single payer system in a democracy and "dictionary" socialized medicine. Others would say they are the same. However you argue the meaning of a couple of words, in the end it comes down to an argument about the value of healthy citizens. People who don't have to worry that a trip to the hospital will cause them to lose everything they have are more productive, less likely to have other health problems.

But I'm getting away from the primary argument in favor of providing universal health care to all citizens. Because it is the right thing to do.