Universal Health Care: Cheap, But Not Free
-
17
Liked it 
Subscribe to RSS
The subject of universal health care, or socialized medicine, is hot this year. Presidential candidates and Michael Moore have presented the good side. Now, here are some facts every voter should know about the downside of universal health care.
The subject of universal health care (or socialized medicine) has been thrust to the forefront of the national conversation. Jingoized by every Democrat presidential candidate and exploited by Michael Moore as documentary fodder, free health care for all is being sold like snakeoil to credulous Americans. There are aspects of socialized medicine, however, that have not been exposed by the American press, the proponents of universal health care or in Michael Moore’s documentary.
“FREE” MEANS “PREPAID”
The most obvious component of “free” health care is that, in fact, it is not free. Socialized medicine is paid for through taxation, and in countries in which it is practiced, these taxes are paid by everyone. Much like our own “Social Security” tax, which imposes a 15.2% tax on anyone who works for a living, socialized medicine schemes are paid for through a combination of income taxes and national sales taxes, or VAT taxes. In other words, working people pay for “free” health care through payroll taxes and taxes on purchases. Nonworking people and individuals working for cash still pay for “free” health care every time they buy gasoline, food or clothing.
The cost to the taxpayer of funding socialized medicine reduces the overall quality of life of every participant in the program. Health care may be “free,” but taxes imposed on automobile, clothing and consumer good purchases make these items out of reach for many middle class citizens.
NICE WORK IF YOU CAN GET IT
Another aspect of socialized medicine that is rarely discussed is that it is rationed. Universal health care programs are the equivalent of a government-run HMO. There are “gatekeepers” at every juncture point in the program, whose job it is to assess your condition and decide whether or not you warrant further care. The gatekeepers are trained physicians, but first and foremost, they are government bureaucrats. Their job is to limit the use of health care in order to keep costs down. As a result, there have been instances in Great Britain of children dying of tonsillitis because they were put on a nine-month waiting list to see a doctor, and in Canada, one woman’s skin cancer metastized before she was allowed to see a dermatologist because it was mistaken for a rash by her regional gatekeeper.
Gatekeepers use a number of factors to regulate the dispensation of health services, not the least of which is the patient’s economic status or economic potential. In short, low-wage, low-skilled patients whose tax potential doesn’t serve the needs of the state are less likely to receive care, whereas skilled individuals who have a steady employment record have a better chance of receiving care. For example, in Holland, attending physicians are allowed to determine when critically ill or injured patients should not be resuscitated.
It was discovered that Dutch physicians are more likely to pull the plug on low-income black patients than they are on high-wage white patients. Lifestyle choices are also a determining factor in health care delivery. Patients who look like Michael Moore, smoke cigarettes (or other substances) or drink excessively won’t be a high priority when the inevitable heart attack, stroke, or liver disease kicks in. Universal health care does not guarantee equal treatment.
Can a patient get around the system and get a second opinion? If they have enough money to buy their way out, some can. Canadians skeptical of, or disappointed with, their diagnosis or treatment protocols routinely cross the border and buy treatment in the United States. However, some countries make buying health services outside the national system illegal. Physicians who sell their services to willing buyers can be fined or jailed, even if the patient’s situation is critical. Practicing medicine without the government’s permission is treated the same as robbing a bank.
GO TO SCHOOL FOR 30 YEARS AND EARN MINIMUM WAGE
The amount of regulation combined with abysmally low wages for doctors inherent in universal health care schemes has lead to a shortage of doctors in countries that have imposed it. After completing twenty years of post high school education and fulfilling rigorous licensing requirements, physicians aren’t happy earning less than a union auto worker with a tenth-grade education. British, Australian and Canadian-born physicians leave their respective countries and move to, well, the United States or Japan, where they can earn what their skills are worth.
This situation has lead countries like Great Britain to recruit high-skilled, low-wage doctors from Pakistan and Indonesia to fill vacancies. As recent events in London and the Glasgow Airport show, this solution has lead to other, more catastrophic, problems with national security.
CAN YOU SAY WALTER REED HOSPITAL?
The United States already has a prime example of government-provided health care. It’s called the Veteran’s Administration, and the scandalous conditions uncovered recently at Walter Reed Hospital should be a clue as to how well the government delivers health care services. Unsanitary conditions, nonfunctional equipment and a lack of staff were some of the issues plaguing Walter Reed, and the veterans whose lives were at stake were virtual hostages to this health care nightmare. The government has demonstrated it can’t take care of a relatively small segment of the population; does any reasonable person believe that imposing this system of health care delivery on the entire country is feasible?
The high cost of health care is a challenge that must be dealt with on a number of levels. Reducing the power insurance companies have to dictate how health care is delivered, real tort reform that discourages frivolous lawsuits by patients who believe that winning a lawsuit is like winning the lottery, and encouraging the use of cash for routine health maintenance (e.g. physical checkups, inoculations, etc.) are things that can help reduce overall health care costs. Putting the health care system under the auspices of the government is a cure that is worse than the disease, and may well prove fatal to the patient in the long run.
There are 40 million of us without coverage. We are real people who look and act just like you. We are not going to the doctor to have moles removed, we are dying. We are not treated for hypertension, we dying. We are real people. We are people who work hard. We are people who deserve access to healthcare. We are your neighbor, your family, your grocer, your mechanic, your music teacher and we are dying. You would rather nuance a broken system than see us live?
Yes, Jess. As a person who has experienced health care under both the British National Health Service and since 1984 the Australian Medicare scheme, both universally funded through taxation, I fail to understand why the USA, of all the major developed countries, has no such system in place. One can accept that there are things the wealthy enjoy we can’t have, but when it comes to a life or death situation being based on the capacity to pay, then that is where the concept of those who have help those who haven;t comes into play. There seems nothing civilised or humane about a system that would deny a citizen the right to life (or health, for that matter) in order to save a buck. Hopefully, whoever wins the upcoming US election will enact a more caring attitude towards those who suffer ill-health but cannot access adequate medical care.
Has the concept of personal responsibility gone totally by the wayside? Has anyone heard of the Medical Savings Account? The fact that some people have no health insurance doesn’t mean that they have no health care. The British National Health service is as bankrupt as Social Security, which is now warning people that their benefits will soon be rationed if FICA taxes aren’t increased (from the current 15.2%). If health care is given for “free”, as Medicare and Social Security currently are, you can bet that the people in the lowest income brackets will be paying the greatest percentage of their income for the privilege, and services will soon be rationed, just as Social Security will be.
If you work hard like everybody else and are another real person, you’re right. You should have heath care. But I have an idea. Instead of using the government to reach into my pocket to fund your health care, give up your big screen television, cell phone, eating fast food and pay for it yourself. An individuals choice in lifestyle has a direct impact on what services they can and cannot afford.
i can admit at first i was all for universal health care, but as i read on it begins to all make sense on why we dont have that system. i think instead of fighting for a way to get universal health care, we should fight for a way to get our insurence companys to make better decisions on what we can and cannot be insured for
There are currently over 40 million uninsured americans living throughout the US. 18,000 people are dying each year, with these facts it is irresponsible to keep the same health care system in place. something needs to be done. Although universal health care is not the only option. We need a happy medium between capitalism and socialism, to ensure that we do not drop ourselves further down in debt but also to ensure that we are saving the lives of innocent Americans. We do not need government mandated health care, we need government OVERSIGHT. Especially over insurance companies to make sure that we are getting what we are paying for. One argument that isn\’t so easy to dismiss is the argument about innovation and the cutting edge of medical care. In a universal health care system the government would seek to limit spending be forcing down payments to doctors and pharmceutical companies, while scrutinizing treatments for cost-effectivness. This, in turn, would lead to both less innovation and less access to the innovation that alrady exists. And the public would end up losing out. It may seem like i am contradicting myself, however i am simply stating facts about both sides of the argument. Something needs to be done it is true, but universal health care could potentially break America.
“This situation has lead countries like Great Britain to recruit high-skilled, low-wage doctors from Pakistan and Indonesia to fill vacancies. As recent events in London and the Glasgow Airport show, this solution has lead to other, more catastrophic, problems with national security.”
I am highly doubtful of Universal Health care, but please, if you are intent on making a valid case against Universal Health Care, keep your points a) centred on the necessary issues b) draw your arguments along the lines of factual information and c) don’t demonstrate your obvious polarising outlook.
You make it difficult for those who wish to stress the arguments against Universal Health care more difficult.
“This situation has lead countries like Great Britain to recruit high-skilled, low-wage doctors from Pakistan and Indonesia to fill vacancies. As recent events in London and the Glasgow Airport show, this solution has lead to other, more catastrophic, problems with national security.”
I am highly doubtful of Universal Health care, but please, if you are intent on making a valid case against Universal Health Care, keep your points a) centred on the necessary issues b) draw your arguments along the lines of factual information and c) don’t demonstrate your obvious polarising outlook.
You make it difficult for those who wish to stress the arguments against Universal Health care more difficult.
“This situation has lead countries like Great Britain to recruit high-skilled, low-wage doctors from Pakistan and Indonesia to fill vacancies. As recent events in London and the Glasgow Airport show, this solution has lead to other, more catastrophic, problems with national security.”
I am highly doubtful of Universal Health care, but please, if you are intent on making a valid case against Universal Health Care, keep your points a) centred on the necessary issues b) draw your arguments along the lines of factual information and c) don’t demonstrate your obvious polarising outlook.
You make it difficult for those who wish to stress the arguments against Universal Health care more difficult.
“This situation has lead countries like Great Britain to recruit high-skilled, low-wage doctors from Pakistan and Indonesia to fill vacancies. As recent events in London and the Glasgow Airport show, this solution has lead to other, more catastrophic, problems with national security.”
I am highly doubtful of Universal Health care, but please, if you are intent on making a valid case against Universal Health Care, keep your points a) centred on the necessary issues b) draw your arguments along the lines of factual information and c) don’t demonstrate your obvious polarising outlook.
You make it difficult for those who wish to stress the arguments against Universal Health care more difficult.
“This situation has lead countries like Great Britain to recruit high-skilled, low-wage doctors from Pakistan and Indonesia to fill vacancies. As recent events in London and the Glasgow Airport show, this solution has lead to other, more catastrophic, problems with national security.”
I am highly doubtful of Universal Health care, but please, if you are intent on making a valid case against Universal Health Care, keep your points a) centred on the necessary issues b) draw your arguments along the lines of factual information and c) don’t demonstrate your obvious polarising outlook.
You make it difficult for those who wish to stress the real arguments against Universal Health care.
“This situation has lead countries like Great Britain to recruit high-skilled, low-wage doctors from Pakistan and Indonesia to fill vacancies. As recent events in London and the Glasgow Airport show, this solution has lead to other, more catastrophic, problems with national security.”
I am highly doubtful of Universal Health care, but please, if you are intent on making a valid case against Universal Health Care, keep your points a) centred on the necessary issues b) draw your arguments along the lines of factual information and c) don’t demonstrate your obvious polarising outlook.
You make it difficult for those who wish to stress the real arguments against Universal Health care.
Government run health insurance won’t work – I think this example has been proven in many countries that tried government run healthcare and failed. But we also see that Private healthcare does not work either, sometimes people get disqualified because they have one of the million sicknesses listed in the applications and those companies try to give insurance to healthier individuals because healthy individual = less doctors visits, less medications and less drug coverage = more profits.
I think what we need is cooperation between government and private insurance companies. I do not believe it is right to list million health preconditions as a qualification test for applications and deny them healthcare. This is in fact barbaric, can’t believe in 20th century America we can disqualify an American citizen from healthcare coverage because 5 years ago they had an emergency visit. That’s where the government should step in and redefine all rules for private healthcare companies. These companies should not be able to easily disqualify families for coverage and if they want to stay in the game they have to actively work with the people, not just push them away. I think the better model of such healthcare is in Europe, the doctors still get paid very well and every sick person can go to doctor and take care of the their medical needs.
So the problem is obvious: get rid of health industry and drug company lobbyists and start listening to people. Until the lobbyists will have money, power and say, we will have this problem follow us as a shadow from dark past.
I appreciate that everyone here has concerns over the current state of medical care in this country. I appreciate that you are my neighbor, my friend, maybe my brother. I can appreciate that, however people from countries such as Canada and Britain are flocking to the United States because they know they will also die because of socialized medicine. Socialized medicine is rationed in those countries that have it. Do you remember the story a couple of years ago about conditions at Walter Reed Medical Center? That is what will happen if you bring socialized medicine into the picture.
Government has done nothing but bankrupt everything it touches. The US government social security system is gone. Our public school system is in chaos to the point where we will graduate people who can’t read, write, or do math! Now we have government bailing out people that shouldn’t be bailed out. The big 3 and AIG to hit the point home. We started bailing these firms out back in Septemeber of 2008, why aren’t the bailouts working? I am trying to point out that the grass is not always green on the other side. It may look like it but it really isn’t.
I have a cousin who lives in England. He told me the average working person pays about 56% income tax. I don,t want to pay 50% of my income for “free” health care,that’s not free.
Most of the people that I listen to that want national health care,(because they can not afford th insurance) Have No problem paying a new car payment,direct tv or cable bill, a land line phone bill, a cell phone bill,and eat out at least 3 times a week. These same persons that have No Problem paying for all of these other things,still manage a summer vacation at the tune of several hundred dollars inspite of the cost of fuel ( and they cried about the fuel cost on their way to redlobster). I guess cell phones, subsribed tv and vacations are constitutional rights too.
I want to see the look on their face when they look at their pay check stub and see Half goes to taxes(Half).
To the above posting and future reading proponents of universal health care, socialized medicine, etc… :
Yes, there are many without health care in this country. I am one of them. However, universal health care is not the answer to solving the health care problem. In fact, it would turn a flawed system into a non-functioning one. Just look at the real life examples.
Ex 1: Doctors are becoming so obsolete in Canada that smaller towns are lucky to have one family doctor. On 20/20 it showed a one family doctor town that had a patient waiting list of 900 people. His office had a little box where they put all the waiting patients. When a patient died or moved, the office would pull out the little box and pull a name out. The lucky patient was called and informed they finally had a doctor.
Ex 2: In the UK, patients with certain types of terminal cancer are denied life prolonging medications (by the gov that runs the health care system) simply because the cost of the medication is too high.
Ex 3: The wait for simple tests like an MRI, CT scan, etc… is 6 months to one year in Canada.
The wait to see a specialist is 2 years.
Once you see a specialist and if you need an invasive procedure like surgery, the waiting time is 2 to 4 years.
The average time you will wait to see an ER doctor is 24 to 27 hours. Imagine sitting in an ER waiting room that long with a broken leg!
Ex 4: Universal health care countries like the UK and Canada do not have the advancing technology that America has. There is no incentive to create new testing equipment, new medications, new cures, ground breaking surgical procedures, etc.. because there is no profit in it for the companies that would be creating it. Gov. research accounts for only 4% of all medications that are on the market today. There is a reason for that!
Ex 5: Just as when actress Richardson died in Canada a few months ago…..there was not a level 4 trauma center to carry her too in Canada. There was not even a medivac helicopter to transport her to a higher level trauma center. She MIGHT have lived if she was not at some ill equipped hospital with no way to get to a hosp in the US.
The list goes on and on, but maybe you get the point.
Overall a great and relevant article, but there are two minor corrections I have to make. First, it would not be cheap. It would likely cost the average insured American more than it does currently. Don’t forget all the extra levels of beurocracy that anything government-run requires. Second, Micheal Moore does not make documentaries. He makes fairy tales that support his opinions and frequently contain outright lies. He has even admitted so on camera and then laughed like it was some big joke. Watch the movie Manufacturing Dissent if you don’t believe me.
This supposed ‘article’ above is purely false. How can you use such comments as “socialized healthcare scheme” and “government bureaucratic gatekeepers”? I am an American expat who grew up in the States mostly without any healthcare… including when I put myself through college. Having lived in Canada now almost 20 years, I am PROUD to say that my tax contributions not only help afford EVERY SINGLE CANADIAN equal access to this incredible universal healthcare system, but it also helps afford FREE dental care for my daughter and all children in Quebec from birth til age 10… not to mention MAJOR subsidies for all youth who wish to attend university… where top notch universities cost a fraction of what they do in the USA.
Stop believing rhetoric like this propaganda above. I promise if you visit any Canadian city, that you will discover a humane, beautiful culture where the values of community, of humanity, rise above those of pure profit and greed.
Canada is not a ’socialist’ country. It is called a ‘Social Democracy”. You could say that this country brings out the best in capitalism and socialism. Citizens of the USA deserve the same rights. It is that simple.
I live in Australia, and we have a two tier system. All people in Australia are guaranteed health care. Our taxes might be higher than the US, but if I walk into an emergency department I will be treated and never see a bill.
If I go to the local doctor, it will cost me $33 (US$36ish), if in a student or on any social benefits it will be free. I will be seen that day.
I am guaranteed treatment.
We also have private health insurance. With private health insurance you may get slightly better hospital conditions (single rooms etc.). If you get for example a sport injury such as requiring a knee reconstruction, you will get it within a couple of weeks. In the public system would take about 9 months. However, you don\’t find people dying on waiting lists other than extreme circumstances, and everyone is cared for.
Australia also bats able it\’s weight in medic research due to a strong university system (which is also government supported, just finished a bachelor degree majoring in history politics with a debt of us$16000 which I don\’t have to pay til I earn over us$40,000 a year, haven\’t had to pay a cent yet)
“For example, in Holland, attending physicians are allowed to determine when critically ill or injured patients should not be resuscitated.”
So in Holland, doctors make life or death decisions about their patients based on the tax histories of each patient (with which they are somehow magically furnished, along with their patients’ charts)?
Can you say “Partisan, Bought and Paid For”?