Dear Editor,
I found Amanda White's Off the Hill on health care, posted in The Tufts Daily on Feb. 11, to be highly problematic. I love capitalism and value those in the medical profession too, but I support the health care plan.
White argues that doctors (such as her relative) deserve the money they earn, because they "can literally save your life and have vowed to do so." I do not have a definitive answer on the salary I feel a doctor "deserves." However, White's justification of exorbitant salaries of doctors on this basis is absurd. Policemen and firemen take a similar vow — why are they not paid accordingly?
White's answer to this would most likely be that doctors are in a specialized field requiring years of medical school and fees for which they should be compensated. I disagree with White's claim, though, that a universal health care system could not create a system that works better to keep doctors from accumulating student debt and helps them to pay it off. A universal health care plan would mean that the government had a personal and financial obligation to produce competitive physicians and specialists. The government would also be more responsible for the failures of these doctors. Therefore, in time, the government will undoubtedly include assistance in paying for medical school costs and will work to ensure that these schools produce the same kind of great professionals that the capitalist system does.
White asks "If we don't pay people the type of money we do, how will we get any good doctors?" This logic strikes at the heart of what is troubling about today's health care system. Many today go into health care because of its potential for excessive wealth. Wouldn't we rather have a system that relies on professionalism and genuine desire to help rather than selfish motivation? That said, a universal health care system would not make doctors destitute and street-ridden. They would still be paid well. The number of paying patients would increase as the 46 million uninsured Americans become insured. Furthermore, doctors would have more time to see patients and actually make money, because they would not have to waste time filing and negotiating claims and worrying about the profits and costs of running their own businesses or of the Health Maintenance Organizations(HMOs) that they work for.
Finally, I want to address White's question: if health care is made part of the government, "how will we produce new medicines, vaccines and cures?" The new system has the potential to save the United States a lot of money, which could be funneled into research. The United States spends more money per capita on health care than Britain, France and Canada, yet according to the World Health Organization, our health care ranks 37th worldwide, after Costa Rica. There are options to refine the system and save the United States and its citizens money in the long run, which could then be used for research.
When attacking the proposed health care plan, White oversimplifies the issue. Using her limited personal experience, she argues that universal health care will negatively impact doctors' lives, doctors training and searches for new medicines, vaccines and cures. I obviously disagree. And, according to a Reuters survey, apparently, so do 59 percent of doctors.
Sincerely,
Caroline Incledon
Class of 2013
