Health Care Debate

This is a quote from The News, the English-language newspaper in Mexico City. For the full article, see http://www.thenews.com.mx/home/tnhome.asp?cve_home=2075

"The president also promised that by the end of his term in 2012, Mexico will have universal healthcare.Even with obstacles, the goal is still achievable, Calderón said; not a single Mexican will lack access to a doctor, medicine and hospital care, if necessary."

Our Spanish tutor is very well read, and also quite political. She'd be in the green party or something if she was from the U.S. Anyway, she hates the current Mexican president, but has a bit of a man-crush on Obama. He had her from January, when he promised that he and his cabinet would take a pay cut. (salaries of mexican governemnt workers are really really high, as I mentioned in a previous posting.)

Anyway, Sara wants to support Obama, but doesn't understand the current healthcare 'crisis' in the U.S. We tried to explain to her about insurance, which they don't have in Mexico, or about the spiraling cost of health care for everyone, which they don't have in mexico, or highly paid doctors, which they don't have in mexico. Finally, we explained that in the States, anyone (citizen, resident, tourist, criminal) can get help to keep them from dying. As long as they have a baby coming out or are in the process of a heart attack or were just in a car accident or something, they can get enough care to keep them from dying. But that we don't have pre-natal care or heart disease treatment or cancer treatment or anything to prevent these people from showing up in the hospital.

Turns out, in Mexico, they don't even have that kind of basic help. You have to pay for an ambulance to pick you up. If you don't have money, you can call the red cross, and they will come when they can, which might be after you're dead. If you're not immediately dying (like car accident or childbirth) you're going to walk/take a bus/ride the metro/beg your friend for a ride in their really unreliable car.

If you go in for surgery, and you need blood, they will not perform the surgery until your family has donated enough blood to restock their supply. (it does not have to be the same blood type.) If they cannot do that, and you cannot pay for the blood you're going to use, they will not perform the surgery.

If you are in labor, and there are complications, they will only perform a c-section if you can pay for it. If you cannot pay, it doesn't matter if the baby's or the mother's life is in danger, they will not perform the surgery.

There are exceptions, of course. The Red Cross provides charity clinics, ambulances, and hospitals. There are 2 "welfare" hospitals in Mexico City for the very very poor and very very old who qualify for mexico's version of Medicaid. But those poor people have to get to that hospital in order to get treatment. Sometimes teen mothers walk to Mexico city from hundreds of kilometers away bc the midwife in their town won't help them deliver (since they're unmarried) and the only charity hospitals are in D.F.

So, in Sara's opinion, we already have free health care in the U.S. Dying people get care. Everyone gets an ambulance ride. Poor communities have free clinics. Employed people and retired people get doctor's appointments and immunizations and medications and treatments and tests.

When you look at it that way, you can start to see why immigrants will walk hundreds of miles to have a baby in one of our hospitals. I'd do the same if the situation were reversed.