Opinion Analysis by Sarah Yehya, Staff Writer

April 14th, 2020

When a country has the highest quality of healthcare but a relatively low healthcare system, the government must come to a halt. When 8.5% of the population –which is close to 28 million people – have no access to healthcare all year round, the government must rethink its system. When a general check-up costs almost 250$, the government must come to an understanding that high quality healthcare is nothing when barely anyone can access it.

In a capitalist free-market, hospitals are private. Though it attracts the highest quality staff and the most advanced technological developments, it houses only those who can pay its expensive bills. This is where bundles and insurance companies come in place.  In the 60s, Medicare and Medicaid were at a rise, but so was their cost. These bundles provided governmentally decided procedures – where the doctors and treatments were very limited. 

In 2009, Obamacare (a public sponsorship) was introduced as an alternative, only to double its premium within the first four years (from approximately 200$ to almost 470$). That, and the medical choices when it comes to the doctors and networks grew smaller and smaller. Which is why some people still sign up for Medicare, but at this point it does not even insure that they even have healthcare!

Moving to the healthcare’s counter-part: drugs. What is healthcare without prescribed drugs? Probably less expensive. Here’s why: the US government has no direct legislation on drug pricing, making the pharmaceutical business a very profitable one – much to the disadvantage of the community. Take Hepatitis C treatment as an example, it’s three month treatment in Egypt for those who test positive is 45$, while it stands at a skyrocketing 85,000$ in America, even though the cure was fabricated by Michael J. Sofia, and American scientist. With that being said, people that are living on minimum wage or pay-check to pay-check are pretty much doomed. 

When Congress introduced Medicare Part D in 2006, every company had its personal choice for pricing their drug. It also sponsors many plans with the options of “good, better and best”, the latter being the most expensive yet with little advantageous benefits from its former. An updated version came to view in 2011 where plans were asked to “eliminate their low enrollment plans and to consolidate duplicative plans”; leading to even lower beneficiaries. 

Why isn’t there a law that places the drug pricing within the reach of the government? Because that will lead to less profits for the pharmaceutical domain, making it less desirable, and thus less research and innovation for new medications and cure. Another reason would be that the Republican and Democratic parties are heavily funded by pharmaceutical companies, and playing against your team member does not show sportsmanship. 

Taking another great example of what was stated above would be the mere treatment of COVID-19. If the patient does not have insurance, a bill of 35,000$ is sent his way. While if he does have insurance, the cost depends on the bundle he signed up for. When it comes to worldwide pandemics, insurance shouldn’t be on the other side of the phone. The government that wasn’t fast enough to act and protect its people should take the blame. 

In conclusion, the problem is capitalism. But since changing that is out of question we will settle for an inferior solution: funding the healthcare system. Perhaps Israel’s yearly allowance/salary (depends how you see their relationship) of almost 3 billion US dollars yearly can be of help to the American people instead? Or maybe the 1.9 trillion US dollars used to wage the war in Iraq? When will national affairs be of more importance than the economic advantages that come with foreign relations? 

When will the American people stop paying the price?