We have to do something about health care, they all say. So let’s have ‘universal health care.’ Problem solved, right? Not really. Universal health care means more government control in health care. That is not a good thing, as examples show. Actually, before the government stepped in the health care system in the 1960’s, everything involved was a lot cheaper and more accessible.
Of course, there is a problem with health care. But this is caused mainly by the government’s intervention in it. Laws like the Meidcare+Choice bill of 1997 only harm the system as providers cannot cope with what the government is asking to do, and this can have bad effects like forcing hundreds of thousands of senior citizens to look for new providers (with less of a choice than before) as the aforementioned bill did.
But Democrats think we need to spend more and get the government more involved in health care than we already do. One out of seven dollars the economy produces goes to health care. Soon, 35% of the federal budget will go to health care. Democrats think that we should have socialized health care similar to other countries.
But is that really such a great idea? No, it actually doesn’t work in other countries like the UK or Canada. Inferior care, less choice for consumers, and higher costs what we, as other countries before us, will get out of it. In Canada, it caused doctor shortages and hospital money shortages. Alberta doctors urged cancer patients to go to the US because of ridiculously long waiting periods, according to a 2003 Toronto Star. Vancouver’s Richmond hospital had 40% of patients waiting for three months or more even at its most efficient, for elective surgery, said the Vancouver Providence in 2003.
Canadians are increasingly seeking out health care in the US. Why would they do that if their socialized system is so great? Also, in Great Britain, another socialized health care country, thousands of people are refused treatment. The system they have involves age discrimination in order to deal with problems. For example, dialysis centers refuse those who are 55 treatement 35% of the time, 65 year olds 45% of the time, and good luck to anyone 75+ with bad kidneys.
It’s the same in other countries with a similar system. In Russia, for example, patients older than 60 are considered worthless in the health care system and those over 70 are often not given any treatement at all. So, it’s a system that turns away those who need it most. And forget about benefitting the poor. A Heritage Foundation study shows that in Canada and Britain, the rich and well-connected always get better treatment. OVer 80% of doctors and 53% of hospital administrators have been personally involved in preferential treatment for those two groups. Basketball star Shareef Abdur-Rahim was allowed to jump ahead of 1,000 other patients for an MRI scan for his knee in Canada, for example. Anyone the doctors know or who are well known and whose reputation may benefit their hospital or, on the other hand, damage it because of a long wait, is likely to be recieve preferential treatment.
The best solution to the health care problem is to have people be responsible for their own health care. When there are no costs for health care, Americans choose more uneccessary services because they are not responsible for paying for them. On the other hand, it is entirely possible, as with president Bush’s HSAs, to pay for their own health care if they spend wisely. Government Spending only makes the problem worse.
Raising taxes on the ‘rich’ will not help, besides being appallingly unconstitutional. There is no ‘right’ to health care in the Constituation, only a right to pursue happiness. When taxing the ‘rich’ to pay for a bad system for the poor, you are violating the Constitution by not allowing the ‘rich’ to ‘pursue happiness.’ Besides that, 80% of those earning over $200,000 work for or own small businesses that pay taxes at the individual tax rate. Raising taxes on them would leave less money for them to hire workers and to pay for their health insurance, accomplishing the opposite of its goal. Bush’s HSA plans allowed small businesses to have an average of 40-50% immediate savings on premiums in 2004.
’Universal health care’ as advocated by the leading Democratic candidates (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards have all championed it, with the former two reluctant to admit they will raise taxes to realize it) in this elections is sure to be a massive failure from which we may not be able to recover. Rather than helping the poor at the expense of the wealthy, it will hurt both, and the poor will have it even worse, not to mention senior citizens. It will simply plunge us deeper into to governmen controlled health care mess we are in now.
