MY VIEW
Brian Pawley: Universal health care is a blessing, not a curse
I would like to set the record straight for those who believe that their tax bills are too high and for those who believe that universal health care, through social democracy, would be too expensive for this great country.
There are some aspects of our everyday lives that can be enhanced by federal or state involvement and I believe there is no greater advantage than universal health care.
For all my working life, from age 19 to 60, I was a resident in the United Kingdom, with only two weeks unemployed in 41 years. I paid my taxes and national insurance (Social Security) the whole time. I was fully employed by registered companies all that time, so my taxes were paid through PAYE (Pay As You Earn) by my employers before I received my net salary. Similarly, my national insurance (pension and health care) contributions were deducted.
Throughout my working life, I paid UK Inland Revenue between 24 percent and 30 percent, after allowances, depending on my level of income.
In return for my contributions to the state coffers, my family and I received excellent health care, first-rate education, good-quality infrastructure, formidable police presence, firefighters, etc., as well as much-appreciated military protection from outside threats. I can now look forward to an assured pension for life, with cost-of-living increases based on UK data.
I chose to pay for additional private health insurance (approximately $250 per month) to expedite any essential surgery for my convenience, but this did not guarantee any further quality of care or impinge on anybody else’s treatment by the National Health Service.
Private and state health provision can exist side by side.
On top of this, I still had local residential, school and parish taxes to pay, which are pretty much the same as in the United States. British people are also saddled with a Value Added Tax (VAT), which has been at 17.5 percent for goods and services since it started in the 1970s.
By moving to the United States, I forfeited my claim on UK health services because the two nations do not have reciprocal arrangements for this, mainly due to the current complexity of health coverage here.
Consequently, I now have to pay around $700 per month for adequate health insurance.
The last, great truly democratic achievement for the U. S. government would be the provision of first-rate universal health care. It will mean greater contributions from those more advantaged, but should provide a fairer, more economical service for all citizens.
Good health is not the right of only those who can afford it, and social democracy is far from the feared “socialism” being touted as a reason for denying universal health reform. For the broader well-being of all Americans, it makes sense to provide the one key element of good living that affects every citizen—that is universal health care.
Take it from me, U. S. citizens are not overtaxed, but they are underserved by a private health insurance system. The quality of care is excellent, thanks to the skills and dedication of medical personnel, but the cost of private medicine is becoming prohibitive for too many people because of corporate greed.
Despite what critics may say to the contrary, universal health care takes a lot of beating, for fairness as well as making good economic sense.
Log into MyBuffalo to post a comment
MyBuffalo is the new social network from Buffalo.com. Your MyBuffalo account lets you comment on and rate stories at buffalonews.com. You can also head over to mybuffalo.com to share your blog posts, stories, photos, and videos with the community. Join now or learn more.
Reader comments