When I saw the video below at Vivian J. Paige, I cringed.
Most of us have been imbued with more than a little cynicism. Instead of giving thanks for our blessings, we have been trained to see PROBLEMS. Hence we see the problems inherent in our health care system. We see:
- The sick children, the unemployed, and the old who need medical help.
- The problem of choosing a doctor. How do we choose a doctor when we are sick or injured and need help? Even if we know enough about medicine to find the best doctor at the best price, what if we are too sick or injured to do it?
- Insurance companies that do not want to insure preexisting medical conditions.
Instead being the solution, we have also been trained to reflexively see government as the solution. So some people think we should nationalize health care. When I was younger, I was one of those people. As I grew more mature, I dropped the idea. I slowly grew more and more horrified that I had ever seriously considered such foolishness. Why? That is the subject of this post.
Any solution has problems. Before giving up on free-market medicine, we should consider the problems government-run health care will bring. Could government-run health care satisfy us? What do we want when we need health care?
- We want people we trust to treat us and our loved ones.
- We want the care we need when we need it, and we want to be able to use all the resources at our command to treat our health care problems.
- We want to be in control. When there are alternative treatments, we want to choose the nature of our treatment.
Government-run health care would meet none of our wants. Government-run health care is a system designed to satisfy the wants of politicians, not patients. Why? Consider what happens when somebody else pays, not you. You are not the customer. Your requests become irrelevant. The person who counts is the person who pays the bill. If we implement government-run health care, the politicians will pay the bills, and they will become the customer. And we all know who politicians listen to first, special interests.
- Will we be able to choose our doctor? Consider how the public school system works. Can you choose your children’s teachers. If we put the government in charge of health care, why should any of us expect to be able to choose our doctor? Just as your children are assigned a school, you will be assigned a hospital.
- Will we get treatment when we need it? No. When we pay income and sales taxes, politicians, not doctors, get our money. Politicians fund agencies based upon political demands. Special interests line up, exercise their influence, and the budget is allocated based upon influence. For example, look at how politicians decide to spend transportation dollars. Dollars that should have been spent on roads go elsewhere, and developers decide where the roads that are built get built. Because they have already given up their money, what commuters need and want has become secondary.
- Will we be in control? Will government doctors give you treatment options? Why should they? Where else are we going to go? Consider how applying for a public university works. Because politicians pay two-thirds of the costs, we have only moderate competition. Only the “very best” (sex, race and ethnicity not being factors
) or the wealthy students actually have a choice. Otherwise, university officials decide which students they want to accept. Likewise, government officials will decide the best use of government health care resources. Treatment choices will be driven by Federal regulations and designed to empower politicians. With the right friends…… If government officials decide your care is not worth the effort, you will be allowed to die. In fact, you may be graciously offered assistance. When it suits their purposes, even politicians can make death relatively efficient and cheap.
So why does the Democratic Party want government-run health care? Why did the American Medical Association (AMA) endorse (see here) President Barack Obama’s proposal before they knew what would be in the bill? Who gains?
- The Democratic Party receives much of its support from unions. In our era, the strongest unions are the unions of government employees.
- Look at the clout held by the leaders of government employee unions. Teacher’s unions, for example, almost own the education system. Do the bureaucrats that lead the AMA dream of such power for themselves?
- Big corporations pay out huge expenses for the health care of their employees. Government-run health care provides a straightforward method to unload this expense on the taxpayers.
Anyway, back to the video. If you think “it’s time,” you may first wish to check out the experience of folks who have had some experience with socialized medicine. Hands Off My Health has a nice selection here.
Military veterans use the Veterans and Military hospitals, and in spite of a few, much publicized deficiencies (Walter Reed) this example of “socialized medicine” is very highly regarded.
Below is a response that I have posted to this question on another site, but the point is still valid: We do not need a half-way measure, such as Obama-care. We should go all the way to producing the world’s best National Health Service.
The presumption that government would foul this up is a false, cynical premise.
As a small business owner and former supporter of several of Virginia’s elected Republicans, I would like to offer a few reasons why a National Heath Service should have the full support of all Americans, regardless of party affiliation.
1. Currently, there is widespread job discrimination, especially against Americans over forty, because businesses do not want to risk higher insurance bills for the older workers. Even employed, older workers, know that they are the most likely targets for lay-offs and firings.
2. Business owners often elect to hire part-time workers as a way of avoiding the cost of benefits, including health insurance. This hurts the quality of service for customers and the quality of life for the workers.
3. There are numerous other benefits to having a National Health Service, but I will be brief. Business owners will no longer have to spend the time and effort to manage employee health benefits, freeing American enterprise to do what it does best; produce.
The chief criticism of a National Health Service is always that Canada or Britain’s programs have deficiencies. Why on earth would the United States NHS have to suffer any of the failings of those in much smaller countries? As Americans, we have regularly set the world standard of excellence in our national pursuits. Our military is the best on the planet, our space program is without peer, so why should we not expect our National Health Service to be a model of excellence for the rest of the world to follow?
As for the complaint that we would have rationed health care under a national system, most Americans would prefer an accountable federal system to the rationing that goes on by our dubious insurance providers who manipulate the current system for their own profit.
When we look at all that we have created through our national and locally run programs, everything from military, to roads, to sanitation or fire protection, America has done exceptionally well with our national and local government programs. There is no logical basis to presume that the creation of a National Health Service would be anything short of our usual level of excellence.
Tyler – Has it occurred to you that almost all the problems you want to fix with socialized medicine came about BECAUSE the government has already interfered. Why do our employers owe us benefits such as health care? Please give me a bigger pay check. I will buy benefits for myself.
Military personnel and vets use Veterans and Military hospitals because they are “free.” The quality of these facilities depends upon three things: which administration is in charge, how much the public cares, and our ability to make a comparison. Without commercial health care, there is no basis for comparison. With a monopoly — without competition — bad becomes accepted as normal.
Note also that government-run health care comes with arbitrary rules. For example, in military facilities, dependents and retirees must stand in line behind active duty personnel. Similarly, treatment options are “standardized.” That is, take it or leave it.
Your mention of our space program is hilarious. Because NASA could not get its act together, President Reagan put out an executive order. NASA is not allowed to launch military and commercial satellites. Because NASA could not launch the Space Shuttle for 2 and a half years, that is done be private companies.
Americans can create the best National Health Service in the world, just as we have done with our other government programs. There is a monumental effort being made by the insurance oligopolies to push propaganda to the citizens in order to instill fear of a NHS.
Once we establish a NHS, even the skeptics will wonder why we waited so long.
Through the creation of a NHS, we will transition from a corporate run system where insurance profits drive health care decisions and you never really know when a procedure may be denied, to a federal system where service to the citizens will be paramount.
When one encounters problems with the insurance oligarchs, they just sneer and say, “Oh yeah, so sue us!” They know that most citizens do not have the resources or the time left to live to see a law suit to fruition.
With a federal system, problems will be addressed under the public eye and with the force of our political leadership on the side of our citizens. As with our military, when problems that detract from mission completion crop-up, the politicians are forced to act quickly, or sustain a firestorm from the citizens.
When America installs a National Health Service, our citizens will no longer have to worry that they will not be covered, and our businesses will no longer be burdened by health insurance forms and all of the ramifications of employing older or disabled citizens.
With our national will behind the creation of a NHS, Americans can look forward to the best health care on the planet for ourselves and for future generations.
By the way, the NASA example provided in the previous post is ludicrous. Reagan had not lost faith in NASA, rather DoD (where I worked) wanted to have more satellite launch capability. However, your concern for quality of a federally run program is a point worth discussing. We have proved that “socialized” programs like fire protection, military, police and even NASA, have produced the VERY best services in the world. We should expect even better as we build our National Health Service.
J. Tyler Ballance – I suspect you are trying to be sarcastic. What you are saying is so silly it may as well be sarcasm. What scares me about your words is the number of fools who might take you seriously.
Government works best as a limited operation. The bigger we make government, the harder it is to manage.
Think about it this way. When we vote, we are acting like corporation’s board of directors. The more larger and more complex our company, the more we as voters have to know. In addition, our CEO has to know more and do more. At some point, when our company gets big enough, we cannot know all the things our company does, and neither can any CEO we might hire. It then becomes impossible to find management sufficiently talented and knowledgeable to properly run the company. That is why some businesses do not scale up well.
All by itself, our health care system is huge and enormously complex. Consider how long it takes train a doctor. Consider the large number of medical specialties. When we clearly do not have to do so, the idea that we should put these people under the supervision of a bunch of politicians and government bureaucrats is idiotic.
Our military? We have no other choice. Firefighters? We do not know another way. NASA? Socialism in space did not work. NASA does not launch commercial or military payloads. So now, when others have already tried and made of mess of it, we are going to socialize medicine? Only a power hungry arrogant fool would seriously consider the idea.
Our health insurance programs currently suck, if you will excuse the term. They deny some, and others are so wasteful, it is disgusting.
But national health care, IMO, would bankrupt us and kill us as tax payers.
Furthermore, talk to some Vets who have had to struggle through military health programs. It’s like pulling teeth sometimes–never mind that mental health is treated as a medical step-child when our soldiers are among the most needy!
Now…what are some solutions?
1. I believe there must be some option for people with no insurance. Private emergency clinics subsidized by government grants and/or private grants can help here. This isn’t quite socialized medicine, but it isn’t all private, either. Then again, hospitals have private hospital foundations that are quite successful. Use their models to create low cost clinics.
2. Reasonable payment plans are also options. Reasonable means those without insurance should be able to pay on a sliding scale and should not be penalized with bad credit ratings unless payments are not arranged. Some hospitals already have such plans.
3. Mandate employers to offer health insurance that does not result in employees paying half their wages to cover insurance costs. If an employer can’t afford this, they should outsource. There are companies that offer zero or low interest credit for medical costs that include dental care.
4. Use volunteers. We have generous people who would offer some services at low-cost clinics.
We all need to pull together on this one and be part of the solution. Complete national health care isn’t it! National health care is scary.