Congressional Candidate Clyde Makes the Economic Case for Universal Health Care

Press Release

William Clyde, Green Party candidate for U.S. Congress in Connecticut's 2nd District supports Universal Health Care, but his reasons are different from most who hold that position.

"Some have argued that health care is a basic human right, but I disagree," says Clyde. "It is hard to argue that anyone has a right to something that must be produced by someone else."

Instead, he points to the same logic used to argue that K-12 education should be universally provided: what Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman called the "neighborhood effect." Friedman recognized that an educated population is critical to our democracy and our economy, meaning that the education of any of us is valuable to all of us (we benefit from the education of our "neighbors").

Clyde points out that, "Economists recognize that the same is true for health care. Whether it is in controlling epidemics or reducing absenteeism, the health of any of us is important to the well-being of all of us." As such, the same reasoning that supports universal K-12 education supports Universal Health Care.

"The critical issue," Clyde continues, "is that patients must continue to have choices. The state might be the single payer, but it should not be the provider--the market should do that. Competition is key to controlling costs and improving outcomes. And," Clyde adds, "patients should still be allowed to purchase private insurance for additional coverage if they wanted it." That is common in other countries with Universal Health Care.

Clyde also advocates moving away from the "fee-for-service" model, which drives providers to increase procedures in search of revenue. "New payment models, such as Direct Primary Care and the New York Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment (DSRIP) Program compensate providers for maintaining the health of their patients over time instead of for doing operations, tests, and other procedures, which may not be necessary."

"The net effect of all of these changes would be significantly lower costs with better health outcomes," Clyde concludes. "Right now we spend half again as much per person as any other nation, yet most of our health outcomes rank us 20th or worse among nations. That is not the fault of our health care professionals, who are the best in the world. It is our system that is producing these results. The incentives are wrong and we must change them."

Source