Share
There's been a bit of a buzz lately on the subject of universal health care in the United States.
Proponents argue that it would ensure that all have access to basic medical service regardless of their ability to pay. Opponents counter that the inherent bureaucratic waste will ultimately drive up both costs and patient waiting times.
There are other specific arguments for and against universal health care, but they usually all boil down to, "How do we make quality health care affordable for the greatest number of people?" I'm going to skirt the aforementioned question today and instead look at the issue from a more personal side rather than an economic one.
Let us define exactly what we mean by universal health care. For purposes of this discussion I'm going with a single-payer system. In this system there is one entity (presumably the federal government) that covers the costs of health care for every citizen of the United States. Let me paint a picture of what the future might look like under this single-payer system.
To start off, the single-payer system doesn't work properly if there is any private competition. That might mean the ultra-rich are getting better treatment than everyone else, thus defeating the whole purpose. Consequently, all private medical practice will be outlawed to ensure that everyone gets equal treatment. Doctors will instead be federal employees and all medical facilities will be owned and operated by the government.
Due to concerns about terrorist attacks you will have to show a federally-approved ID in order to be granted access to a medical facility. This is no different than what we have to do now to board a commercial airplane or enter some federal buildings. Your federally-approved ID will likely contain biometric information such as your fingerprints and/or retina scan (per the Real ID Act of 2005). If you can't produce your papers you will be denied access.
Your medical records will become part of your permanent profile in a federal database. This information could easily be accessed by other agencies, including law enforcement. Anyone with any sort of criminal history or outstanding warrants could be immediately flagged for detention. Someone who seeks treatment for drug overdose will promptly be arrested for substance abuse. The doctors themselves will have no say in the matter because law enforcement will be alerted the moment you show your ID.
Xenophobes in Congress will make sure that only citizens and legal immigrants are eligible for the federal system. Their reasoning will be that it is the only way to keep illegals from sapping our public resources.
What about migrant workers who are here contrary to law? Or the street addict who is in desperate need of help? Or the residents of states that are not in compliance with Real ID (meaning that the state-issued IDs are not federally acceptable)? Where will these human beings go to seek medical care?
Answer: Nowhere.
Or they go to a black market physician, much like abortion clinics prior to Roe v. Wade.
Speaking of abortion, what happens when a socially conservative Congress and President take over again? Then your medical care will be in the hands of the Lord, and you can rest assured that only biblically-approved methods of treatment will be allowed. Abortion will be outlawed immediately, regardless of the circumstance. Condoms will be banned since they encourage promiscuity.
At this point in my column proponents of single-payer health care are moaning, "We didn't mean this!" Of course you didn't. No one ever asks for the unintended consequences of public policy, but that is the double-edged sword of getting something for "free" from the government.
The point I'm trying to make is that no one seems to be thinking of these potential encroachments on our civil liberties. After 9/11 civil libertarians wasted little time in criticizing certain aspects of the War on Terror as a power grab that would do more harm than good. That said, I encourage supporters of universal health care to consider what could happen when the government has full control of our health care. Your intentions may be noble, but you will have little say over who wields that power and how they do it.
Leave a comment 2 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
And don't forget, the lovely system of Universal Health Care has some other fatal flaws too. Sure, it's a pretty good system when you're healthy and only need regular check-ups and exams. But Whoa Nelly! If you get cancer or have some other terrible affliction that develops in your lifetime, you're screwed. Look at Canada. People who think they have cancer have to wait months just to get a simple diagnosis, then more months for the treatment! They flood to the U.S. for cancer treatment because they can get it far quicker and save their life. One man from Ottowa had terrible headaches and was put on a wait list for 5 months for a simple CAT scan. He drove to Buffalo, got a CAT scan, the doctors found a cancerous tumor in his brain, and within a week he had life-saving surgery, HERE. Do we really want the Canadian system, where it's pretty much good health care until you get sick, in which case it's "oh well, you'll die before you make it through the wait list?" I will take our system, even with its costs and flaws, any day thank you.
Reply to this Top
You were doing so well until you brought up abortion. I fail to see your point there... but I'm going to move past that just to say that a socially conservative Congress and President would never allow a Universal Health Care system to stay in operation. It is the socially liberal people who are supporting this system, Obama and Hillary come to mind. I would dare say we'd be far better off with a social conservative, someone who percieves the evil in the world and knows the fatal flaws inherant in the socialist system, in office than the social liberal.
Reply to this Top