Share
Socialized medicine has the same problems. Despite the glowing depiction Michael Moore offered in his movie "Sicko," there are a few inescapable pitfalls. Because it is offered free of charge, lines are going to be long and hospitals are going to be crowded. The average wait for many treatments in places like Canada can be weeks if not months. The quality of the care suffers as well. When it comes to people looking for the best doctors and the best medicine, they come to America because that's what capitalism fosters.
Liberals can complain about it all they want, but many of the great medical advances in medicine have been made with profit in mind. Profit is what motivates people to create cures for diseases. Profit is what refines technology and spurs innovation. Socialized medicine can bring advances, but it is paralyzed by the bureaucratic mess that is indicative of any government organization.
In addition, there is another cold hard fact. Socialized medicine is expensive.
The tax rate in Europe and Canada is far greater than that in America. Hillary Clinton's new plan alone would cost over $100 billion, and that's just an estimate. And with a $9 trillion debt and a $200 billion budget deficit, America just can't foot the bill for something like socialized medicine at this point. So, what's the solution?
In the end it may be best if both systems were used. Insurance doesn't do everything wrong. They help pay for treatments that people wouldn't be able to afford. But a little reform couldn't hurt. Encouraging HSAs (Health Savings Account) would be a good first step. In exchange for a high deductible, people could save money into a tax-free account that they could use as they please.
This would not only put more control in the hands of the individual but ease the restrictions on doctors and allow for some free market competition. And economics dictate that when people compete, consumers (or patients in this instance) win.
And for those who are too poor to save, services like Medicaid and free clinics can help offer care to those who need it. And when people die as a result of blunders by officials, public or private, they should be prosecuted under the law because the needless death of just one person can never be repaid in money.
In the end the best thing this country can do to improve the health care system is to just take better care of itself. It may not be the American way in this culture of excess, but it will accomplish a whole lot more than the pointless droning of aspiring politicians.
Continue Reading: « Previous12
Leave a comment 8 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.
Kudos to you, Jacob. This is the first clear explanation of the nature of insurance that I've seen in just about any media (including major newspapers).
Reply to this Top
Jacob, good analysis. The only (admittedly minor) complaint I have is that when you initially introduce socialized medicine, you refer to it as "free of charge." Of course, you later point out that the cost is in the form of increased taxation. But this connection is so often lost on people that I'd prefer to always see the cost presented right up front so there's no doubt. Socialized medicine is welfare all over again - taking from those who can afford it on their own and forcing them to foot the bill for those who can't. Also, the figures for # of Americans without healthcare generally ignore the fact that many Americans choose to decline coverage. For my money, I agree with Tom and like the HSA because it rewards you for being healthy; the unused funds in your HSA essentially become a supplemental IRA once you retire. But if you happen to be unfortunate and require medical attention, you're still protected (and can use your HSA funds tax-free).
Reply to this Top
One more thing, Consumer Driven Healthplan's are definitely the way to go. It makes people responsible for their own healthcare costs. Many corporations are going in this direction, 1. because it saves the company money, 2. it has the potential to save their employees money because preventative healthcare is covered at 100%, and any unused funds can be rolled over. Of course some years will be more expensive than others. Some years you may have to have necessary procedures, or you may visit the emergency room 2-3 times. You'll have a higher deductible, so it may cost you more in the short term, but in the long term it has the potential to save you a lot of money.
Reply to this Top
Long comment Brian. Also a waste of time. The WHO and the best brains in the entire world feel that, from a public health perspective, it is important to rank certain things. "Conservatives" object on the basis of dogma. Boring. Get a life and an education and then come back for a real discussion of the merits of various health systems. Everything is a trade-off. Not interested in political dogma, labels and such junk. Systems work exactly the way the people in the respective countries want them to.
Reply to this Top
Zagreus Ammon: you obviously didn't read Brian's entire comment. It wasn't about "dogma;" it was about disputing the factors the WHO used to rank the countries. Basically, the WHO awarded countries that have equal coverage for everyone (even if it's poor for everyone) over countries that have unequal coverage (even if ranges from good to excellent).
Reply to this Top
Brian, you got me thinking about something. You say that our system is not perfect, and of course perfection is difficult to attain. However, we often refer to "perfect" as meaning "utopia," where everyone is happy and has what they want and need. But to me "perfect" is everyone having what they deserve. I believe the American system more closely allows for this than any socialist system. Of course, under this definition of perfection, the only knock against the American system is that not everyone starts out on a level playing field; some are, in essence, born into better situations than others. So the obstacle to perfection within the American framework is the difficulty of finding a way to give equal opportunity to everyone from day 1.
Reply to this Top
Socialism has at least a decent idea of providing equality among a populous, but it quickly degrades from "equal opportunity" to "equal entitlement."
Reply to this Top
The government caused the problem with health care in America by over socializing medicine to the extent it is not completive, and we want to exacerbate the problem? Kids have health care. The needy already have health care. The U.S. is not a socialist state ( see http://tinyurl.com/2znnvl ). No one is entitled to be given a house, car, food or health care, etc. If we want these things, we have to earn them. The government does not earn money. Perhaps some of us should take a civics class and learn about America. We all have to labor for what we want. For those who need help there are the charities and state programs. We need to fix the health care issue but we cannot fix it unless we know how it is broken. For the answer, please see http://www.InteliOrg.com/
Reply to this Top