Analysis Of The Conscience Of A Liberal By Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman, the author of “The Conscience of a Liberal,” argues that the reform needed for the health care system is a challenging and daunting task but needs to be addressed and improved. Krugman debates the morals and economics of the current system and exploits the inequalities the failing system. Similarly, T.R. Reid, the author of “The Healing of America, “argues that a possible way of reforming the problematic health care system is to have a cooperation between the insurance companies and the government in which the government regulates health care and provides insurance to all. On the other hand, Kevin C. Fleming, the author of “High-Priced Pain: What to Expect from a Single-Payer Health Care System,” argues that the single-payer health

care system is more harmful than helpful in aspects of economics, quality of health care and new inequalities that will be brought up.
The economic analysis of the health care system deters the moral aspect for providing insurance for all civilians.

The debate always lies on the agenda whether to make the right choice that benefits all or a corporation making a huge profit over civilian losses. America is a very profit-oriented and capitalist country, it is not much of a shock that every aspect of life is based on economics. Krugman explains that having a centralized system, which America does not have, in which individuals have basic health care coverage will cut cost on different parts of the current system such as administration and pharmaceuticals. He also proposes more emphasis on preventive care which would allow for early detection and early measures to be taken so that insurers would not have to spend money later for treatment which people are often denied by the current system. Krugman states, “As I’ve argued, there’s a near-consensus that all Americans should have basic health care. Those who believe otherwise keep their beliefs private, because saying that it’s okay to deny care to someone because [they] were born poor, or with the wrong genes, is politically

unacceptable”(220).
In other countries such as Switzerland, the government officials put their differences aside and cooperated together on a deal that provides health care to their citizens.

Their morals prevailed over economics and used their “solidarity” to unite their differences and solved a problem that was affecting the country as a whole. Reid demonstrates how in Switzerland, equality matters and that is how they are able use the basic rule of everyone having equal rights to solve the problems that most countries cannot figure. Reid states, “To have a great sense of solidarity among the people, all must have an equal right—and particularly, a right to medical care. Because it is a profound need for people to be sure, if they are struck by the stroke of destiny, they can have a good health care system. Our society must meet that need” (177). The Swiss were able to determine the basic concept that every human being is thought and changed their system that was resembling the American system and were able to tactically consult their issue. Their current system in which the government is in charge, individuals get their own insurance with a basic package, which is mandatory and if one desires, they can buy more insurance and also their companies are non-profit which reduced competition between the companies. This system can be beneficial in aiding everyone have insurance but the more conservative individuals will view this system as “socialized medicine”. The main arguments that are made

are that if the government is in charge with health care, there will be more cons and pros that arises. Fleming argues that system of the government being in charge can be classified as “socialized medicine” but by definition, “socialized medicine” is a system in which the government owns and controls all aspects of health care including hospitals and doctors. Fleming states, “Authoritarian governance is intrinsic to government central planning, and national health insurance is impossible without government central planning. Given widely varying opinions over what the "right" amount of health care is … it is difficult for a government … to decide on the quantity and the standard of care to be provided to millions of different patients” (25). He argues that the government will set standard that are very difficult to be met but in reality, insurance companies do more than enough to try and deny people’s need for coverage when their health is on the line. Fleming writes his essay as an economist and only hits his point on how the health care system will economically suffer rather looking at the deeper ways people are being affected by the current system.
T.R. Reid provides an interesting view on health care with influences the high stake health care debate, stating a compelling for an effective and efficient wat to solve the dire and failing health care system. With Reid and Krugman’s arguments about looking at the different models that other industrialized countries have adopted and finding a system that works best for the United States. There has been too many cases of people going bankrupt and