Joan Beck’s report of concerns that “drastic health reform isn’t necessary” undermines an otherwise excellent critique of the Clinton administration’s health plan.
In the early ’70s, our nation spent about $80 billion each year on health care. Today, the figure is more than $800 billion. Despite this 10-fold increase, the system remains fragmented while access is waning. Health care coverage is currently unavailable for more than 35 million people. Many millions more have inadequate coverage.
To cite but a few examples of the system’s shortcomings, prenatal care for the poor is woefully inadequate, rural health care is practically an oxymoron, emergency rooms have become the “de facto” health-care point of entry for the nation’s urban poor and medical students are increasingly pursuing careers as specialists-rather than risk losing earning power as general practitioners.
Beck correctly notes that the Clinton plan will likely cost more than advertised, will probably place limits on provider choice and is based in part on budgetary gimmicks-such as price controls and spending ceilings-that could prove fiscally disastrous if enacted. Clearly, the plan has its flaws. But it remains the most comprehensive and serious reform effort in decades.
