By: NORMAN WETTERAU, M.D. - FMHF PRESIDENT
At this point, everything seems negative: staying at home, worried that we or a family member might die from the virus, and the economic collapse that our nation seems to be entering into. This epidemic is uncovering some weaknesses and unaddressed problems in our land. Will we decide to address these? So far it appears we might. Both political parties are suddenly concerned with the uninsured, even those who were previously opposed to any expansion in our government health programs. We do not want the uninsured to stay at home, infect others, and then die, leaving children without parents or grandparents. Suddenly some who had opposed the expansion of government-subsidized health care are concerned.
Children are going to school at home, but many had no home computers or internet access at home. Suddenly large school districts are finding ways to correct this situation. This problem is no longer pushed under the rug.
Then there is the problem of the marginally employed, the waitresses, taxi drivers, and part-time store clerks who are out of work. Both political parties came together to provide money for some of these people. We are all concerned that they have shelter and food. More problematic are the homeless and undocumented workers who are now unemployed. The virus can easily spread through homeless shelters. When we are to shelter at home, what happens if we have no home? Every unsheltered person is a risk to others but these people are unsheltered due to the economic status and lack of a home. Some of these problems might be harder to address than the issue of health insurance or computer-based education for all, but still need to be addressed.
Another issue in our basic economic system is fine in good times but not for a crisis such as this one. Dr Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia University and 2001 recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics wrote an opinion piece in the April Time magazine: Vol 195, No 14. He points out that markets can be shortsighted and risk-averse. Of course, the markets seemed to work wonderfully in the past few years, but their efficiency does not prepare us for a crisis. We needed to produce and store gowns and masks but how can one expect a company to produce things that they are not paid for and then store them for some emergency that may never come. There are things that a free economy is good for and things that the government needs to do. A totally free enterprise healthcare system has not prepared us for this and by itself, it cannot solve the problem. It appears that now people recognize this, but what about the next time? He compared what we have done to buying a car and saving money by leaving out a spare tire. Everything is fine and we have more room in the trunk until a flat tire occurs. Dr. Stiglitz writes: “We have been running our entire society without spare tires and proud of the seeming efficiency we’ve gained, and never prouder than in the health care sector.”
So we are responding to many of these challenges. It has been surprising how both political parties can agree. Let’s pray that this can continue. The real question is, once this epidemic is over will we remain concerned for those without insurance, the unemployed, the homeless, and the small businesses? Will we return to a very efficient private health care system that running without any spare tires?