Jerry Sturdivant’s Aug. 7 letter correctly notes that the United States is unique among industrialized nations in not providing universal health care. But he overlooks the trade-offs nations accept to finance and sustain their systems.
Universal health care is not free. It is funded through higher taxes, mandatory payroll contributions or broad-based consumption taxes such as the value-added taxes common in many European countries. A system of this scale would almost certainly require contributions from a much broader segment of Americans, not simply “taxing the rich.” Many lower-income households currently pay little or no federal income tax, so financing universal coverage would likely require broader tax increases or mandatory contributions.
Many countries with universal systems also struggle with lengthy waits for specialist appointments, elective surgeries and diagnostic testing because demand often exceeds resources. Government-funded health care can also bring greater government involvement in public health policies intended to reduce taxpayer-funded medical costs.
Health care reform deserves an honest discussion of both benefits and costs, not the suggestion that universal coverage comes without significant trade-offs. Americans should fully understand what they would gain, what they would pay and what compromises they may be asked to accept.
