Healthcare has become one of the most important policy discussions within American politics recently. Some people would be lead to believe that there are only two solutions to the dire healthcare situation in the United States, where an average of 543,000 people file for bankruptcy yearly, directly related to their tremendous medical costs. Naturally, as we saw in the second night of the Democratic debate, all of the candidates supported more government regulation, while the majority of candidates support the full-blown government takeover of the healthcare system. This may seem like a very promising solution to the 27 million nonelderly that have no form of insurance as of 2016. Those without healthcare are desperate for some type of reform in the presently messy system, but it would have massive economic implications that could possibly render it ineffective.



An astounding 1/6th of our GDP is dedicated to the healthcare industry. Although this is tremendously more than any other country, it is not necessarily a bad thing. It makes up an astounding part of our economy, with over 2 million people employed in the private healthcare industry, and 91% of Americans who have insurance have it through private means, at over 67%. With this in mind, the suggestions for change by the front-running Democratic candidates would require billions of dollars. This would also require upwards of 160 million people to change their healthcare plans completely.

The further left-leaning Democrats such as Kamala Harris, Sanders, Booker, and O’Rourke all support the abolishment of the private healthcare industry. Their criticisms encompass accusations of corporate abuse by drug companies and hospital administrations, but also as a moral imperative. And by stating that single-payer would be cheaper, and allow people to involved in a more efficient system, backed by taxes. Their competing candidates, Buttigieg and Bennet, proposed a more centrist model with a public option. But also gives the ability to retain private insurance, a significantly more moderate view.



Aside from the practical standpoint, the extreme policies are politically dangerous in terms of appealing to the politically moderate Americana, especially those in swing states. Middle-class voters from Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida might not support an initiative that would skyrocket their taxes towards healthcare entitlements, and that is already incredibly difficult to pay for. The candidates that are pushing for more progressive healthcare should move their views the center, to an effective solution that has seen success in other countries.



The 2008 documentary Sick Around the World details the various approaches to healthcare from successful, capitalistic countries similar to the U.S. The film does an excellent job of showing the different methods of achieving inclusive and inexpensive healthcare while leveraging economic concerns. The Japanese system, for example, could be a brilliant political move for either party trying to win over valuable moderates. And in terms of practicality, it would fit in perfectly with the capitalistic American market.



The question becomes why specifically the Japanese system over any other? Primarily, Japan is closely comparable to the capitalist culture and economic power of the U.S. As referenced in the documentary, Japan boasts a lower percentage of GDP (at 8%) cost than Britain, has the lowest infant mortality rates, and the highest life expectancy of any country. It has an immense bipartisan appeal in that nearly all of the insurance is government-sponsored, rather than letting the government control all forms of insurance. Japan uses a strong “social insurance” model, where people either buy insurance from a community insurer or through the workplace. The government then pays for those who cannot. However, it would be significantly fewer people than currently on Medicaid, which would notably reduce entitlement spending.



One of the best elements of the Japanese system is that because insurance companies negotiate fixed prices, it keeps the average treatment cost very low. This in-turn makes the treatments available for prices so low that the government rarely ever has to pick up the tab for citizens. The very “free market” method may seem like a capitalist’s brainchild, but it has yielded incredible results. The greatest testament to this notion is that nearly no one in a country of 130 million people has ever gone bankrupt from expenses.

The possibility to appeal to middle ground voters and Americanize the Japanese system has been overlooked. The far-left candidates continue to demonize insurance companies, rather than move to an objectively more reasonable middle. This approach could not only be the saving grace for the Democratic candidates trying to stand out from the crowd but more importantly, for the nation at large.



Advertisements

Matthew Richards Matthew Richards is a sophomore political science student at Saint Louis University. He is passionate about national-level US politics and seeks to shed light on the most pressing issues of our lives from a conservative perspective, with special attention to capital punishment and gun rights. Outside of The New Voice, he is a competitive powerlifter and member of the Phi Delta Theta Fraternity.

Share this: Facebook

Twitter



Leave this field empty if you're human: