Singer discusses importance of health care reform

Currently, the United States spends more per capita than any other country in the world, yet is ranked 176th in infant mortality and 50th in life expectancy according to the CIA World Factbook. According to a study conducted by the World Health Organization, the United States health care system is ranked 37th. These statistics make “it look like we’re not getting good value for money,” Singer said.

In addition, health care spending is “increasing rapidly as well,” at a rate that the United States economy will not be able to support, he explained, and it is ironic that other industrialized countries manage to spend less and provide “universal health insurance,” unlike the United States, which spends much more but “a significant portion of [its] population” remain uninsured.

By improving our health care to the level of that of some of the best countries, “we would be saving 100,000 lives per year” by preventing “amenable mortality” — deaths occurring for people under the age of 75, Singer noted.

“If it is true, then you have to say that the fact we are not getting good health care is a national tragedy,” he said.

Singer compared the statistics he presented about healthcare to 9/11, when 3,000 people lost their lives. The lack of adequate health care, said Singer, is “more than 30 times the tragedy spread over a year.”

One solution that is currently under debate is that which the libertarians put forward: to utilize the free market. Health care would be treated like any other commodity and hospitals would only save the lives of the uninsured on a “charitable” basis. However, Singer argued that health care is special and that it cannot be treated as a regular commodity.

“Information is really important for a good, well-functioning market,” he said. Health care is “not a standardized product” because people are different, and different diseases present themselves and progress differently in different people. Additionally, the flow of information between patients and doctors is too unbalanced.

There is also the problem, according to Singer, of not being able to return or exchange health care once it is received. For example, if a doctor does something wrong, “you can’t just return the product because the product is you, or whatever was done to you,” Singer said. A person can sue the doctor, but that will not necessarily give back health or, in some cases, a person’s life.

Health care is also a public good in that it makes a difference to everyone if someone has good or bad health coverage. For example, if someone does not take the full course of antibiotics, they could make the virus or bacteria into a resistant strain so that others who catch it will not be curable either.

There are many benefits to universal health care besides saving lives, Singer said. Universal health care, in the long run, would “reduce overall expenditure on health care by covering everyone.” U.S. companies would also be able to compete in a global market better, as the burden of paying for health care would be lifted, he explained.

Currently, “virtually half of the U.S. population has their health insurance through their employers,” Singer noted, and such health care would also be morally uplifting. “If you are living in a community where whether you live or die depends on how much money you have ... that produces a different sort of society.”

Although opportunities would never be exactly the same for the poor and rich, if a life is saved regardless of a person’s socioeconomic status, it promotes unity within the society, he added.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

However, there remains the problem of what kind of care the country should provide. “We should get ... the health care that provides the greatest benefits for the resources available,” Singer said.

This issue becomes complicated, however, with issues such as end-of-life care and saving disabled people over healthy people. For example, in prolonging life, hospitals spend high amounts of resources that could be used for saving lives.

“We should only be spending on health care that actually benefits people and that benefits the patients,” Singer said.

“People very often say ... ‘Are you suggesting that we put a price on a human life?’ “ Singer said. But in fact, we already do, he said. The U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission values a human life at $5.8 million and $5 million respectively. The UK National Institute for Clinical Excellence places a $47,000 maximum for one year life, or $2.35 million for saving the life of someone for 50 years of good health.

Although these questions are morally complicated, we also have the moral responsibility to use the finite resources of the world “to do the most good,” Singer said. “We should explore ways to try to evaluate the costs and benefits.”