dernière chronique
A first step towards universal health-care coverage ?
Health-care is amajor issue the next President will have to deal with. In 2006, estimations revealed that 47 million people lacked health-care coverage (16% of US citizens)... and after the subprime mortgage meldown, millions more will be further added to. We're not only talking about social matters here : health-care spendings near 15% of US GDP (estimations foresee 20% by 2016). If you consider that W.H.O ranked the US being among the top ten highest spenders of the United Nations member countries in 2004 (and #1 if you add private spendings), health-care's impact on economy is striking !
So what are the chances to see the next President enforce universal healthcare access ? Notmany , if he is a Republican. Take Mitt Romney, for example. Despite his remarkable plan, as Governor, to bring mandatory universal health-care coverage to Massachusetts (making health insurance coverage a legal requirement), his proposals as a White House candidate go the opposite direction : Romney wants to expand and deregulate the private health insurance market, in order to decrease costs and ensure that more Americans have access to private health insurance... but no mention of any legal requirement.
In fact, Romney's plan takes up this very conservative idea that health-care must be given up to free private markets... period. It's okay if the government helps people to buy their insurance (beacuse it helps markets grow), but it's not if the government provides a universal right to health-care (because government responsibilities would grow). The same idea is defended by Fred Thompson (for whom health-care must be regarded as an individual choice, but not as a fundamental human right) or by former New York City Mayor Rudolf Giuliani (« I believe we can reduce costs and improve the quality of care by increasing competition. We can do it through tax cuts, not tax hikes. We can do it by empowering patients and their doctors, not government bureaucrats. That's the American way to reform health care.").
Not surprisingly, the Democrats seem to share a very different point of view... and tend to stress this distinctness in their campaigns : universal health-care is one of Hillary Clinton's top goals if she gets elected (taking up one of her husband's commitments when he was at the White House), Barak Obama too. But in both examples, it's presented more as an objective than as a starting point : the Democrats focus on how to decrease health-insurance costs (in order to make it affordable to all), rather than to suggest a legal requirement right away.
So fundamentally, where is the difference between Republicans and Democrats on the health-care issue ? One side presents universality as a top goal, the other doesn’t.. But in both cases, everyone seems to agree on lowering costs. Can it only be a matter of trust ? Does the destiny of health care depend on a candidate’s wills and means ? Seems so… But at this stage of the campaign, one thing is certain : United Statesis realizing it's poverty problems. Even if there is a collective « Faith » in markets to solve these matters, this election highlights the different ways of comprehending social concerns. Even if we, europeans, may have difficulties in understanding American reticence to enforce a legal requirement for health-care, we must keep in mind that the trail leading to such a right is long and difficult. It is only in 2008 that we will know if a first step is made towards this goal, according to who will sit in the oval office.
Benoît PETIT
Pour en savoir plus :
www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
www.hillaryclinton.com
www.mittromney.com/Issues/healthcare
www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx?View=OnTheIssues
| 
