Viewpoint:

The debate rages on over the health care situation in America.  Some claim we are in the midst of a crisis, and that we need a complete overhaul of our health care administration.  Now, everyone would agree that if people aren’t getting the care they need, there is a problem.  But, do we really have a crisis, and is a nationalized health care system the answer?  As will be detailed below, moving to a socialized system is a misguided scheme.

How many times have you gone to a restaurant with a group of friends or associates, and it’s decided beforehand that the check will be split evenly among everybody in the group?  We’ve all found ourselves in situations like that.  Maybe you’ve shared living quarters where the utility and grocery bills were divided evenly.  How do those scenarios usually play out?  Are you the type of person who proposes these types of share-and-share-alike arrangements, and then indulges yourself at the expense of the others?  Or are you the type who grudgingly goes along with the idea, so as to not offend anyone, and then winds up paying several times more than you should for your portion?

The fact of the matter is, when resources and responsibilities are shared communally, without regard to differences among individual proportions, those who exercise discretion end up being taken advantage of.  When personal responsibility for one’s own actions is diminished, the rules we play by tend to get much looser… to the detriment of all.  This is why socialized health care is an ill-conceived notion. 

Case in point:  An all-too-common lifestyle in America today is one of a poor diet consisting of fast food and junk food, lack of exercise, obesity, and habits such as smoking and excessive drinking.  So it is not surprising that our nation’s two leading causes of death, by far, are heart disease and cancer.  Now, everyone is free to live the lifestyle of their choosing, but is it fair to ask everyone to equally participate in a health care system with a population that treats their health with such disregard?  It won’t surprise anyone to hear that socialized health care is not favored by people who keep in shape and budget their money wisely. 

Critics maintain that health care must be our country’s number-one priority.  Most people would probably agree with that sentiment, but unfortunately our personal habits are in direct contrast to it.  If health care is to be our country’s number-one priority, shouldn’t that be reflected by individuals making it their own personal number-one priority? 

Look, we have a very elevated standard of living in this country.  Even those who fall under the label “poor” own TV’s, computers, DVD players, and cars to get them to and from where they need to go.  Now think about that.  Everyone deserves those things, but let’s consider priorities.  Ask yourself: Do you budget your monthly income, and regularly put money aside into a health-care savings fund?  Or do you make sure some of your more discretionary needs are taken care of, and rely on your number-one priority to somehow take care of itself?  How many people do you know who truly relinquish control over their most important priorities?  The fact is, our actions reveal what our priorities are.  Can we rightfully demand that others recognize our personal priorities when we don’t actively recognize them ourselves?

Even those who agree with that concept will say the costs of health care are just too high to be budgeted for by most people.  Well they may have a point.  But we have to examine why the costs are so high.

We’re all sympathetic towards children who are in desperate need of high-cost surgery, and whose families can’t afford the procedure and don’t have insurance.  We all feel for people, particularly seniors on fixed-incomes, who face the dilemma of not having enough savings to use for health-related needs.  These truly are regrettable situations.  But it does not automatically follow that a nationalized health care system will correct them.  If we concede that health care costs are too high, there are two perspectives on how to address the problem:  One is to look for ways to drive the costs down.  The other is to guarantee they’ll be paid for, whatever the costs may be.  Which do you think is preferable?

Affordable health care can only be fostered through free-market exposure.  It will not come as a result of government takeover and ever-growing subsidies.  Those things will drive up the costs dramatically.  It makes perfect sense.  In any arena, true competition holds down prices.  It also would give everyone absolute freedom to choose their own doctors, based on quality and price.  It would also prohibit people from seeking superfluous care at everyone else’s expense. 

If you want health care that is truly free, find enough doctors to volunteer to practice medicine for our entire nation without being paid.  It’s that simple.  One way or another, we will pay for our health care.  If we try to implement a system were we all pay equally, like in the aforementioned restaurant example, the overall costs will go up.  The first result will be that many people will be unfairly made to pay more than their share, and the ultimate result will be that we will run out of resources to support it.  We must promote incentive for everyone to help pay their own way, or we will go broke.

We also need to examine the basic concept of supply and demand.  We have a shortage of doctors in this country (have you ever known a doctor who was out of work?).  There are a number of reasons the doctor-to-patient ratio is outrageously high.  The costs of medical school are enormous, and so only the very privileged even have a shot at it.  And those that do also have many other options available to them which don’t carry the same burdens as medical school.  We expect our doctors to work 80-100 hours a week, performing a job that requires a high level of skill, and then allow our litigious society to threaten them with ridiculously high punitive damages if errors occur.  Do such standards exist at your job?

We have an obligation to make it attractive to become a doctor, otherwise the most capable people will ignore the profession.  Though we must maintain high standards and punish those guilty of neglect and malpractice, we must also give allowances for human error, and we must not tolerate opportunists who make fortunes off them when they occur.  One reason we even have the technology and the expertise to perform previously unheard of procedures is because the opportunity for reward has encouraged innovation from intelligent, dedicated, and ambitious people.  Why abandon such a system in favor of one hamstrung by government control?

Doctors and hospitals are not completely innocent, however.  Why is the cost of insurance so high?  It’s true that insurance companies look to make a profit, and they need to do that in order to operate and employ the people necessary to administer their business.  But we must also look at the growing volume of dollars in claims insurance companies are required to pay out.  A one-night hospital stay costs them thousands of dollars.  If you think prescription medicine takes a lot of money out of your pocket, how much do you think insurance companies get charged? 

The ever-increasing size of Medicare (i.e. quasi-socialized medicine) has given doctors and hospitals the means to increase their prices.  The effect of competition is diminished when patients have their care paid for by the seemingly unlimited funds from the government and insurance companies.  It’s a fact that health care costs have risen eight-fold over the rate of inflation since the inception of Medicare.  Insurance companies can’t print money, so it only makes sense that it will cost more to get insurance when claims are ridiculously high.  To lower the premiums, we have to lower the claims.

Critics’ testimonies that other countries are successfully operating socialized health care are highly debatable.  The fact that millions come to this country for care betrays the argument.  If we have such a health care crisis in this country, why do we have the world’s highest life expectancy?  And why does it keep going up?  In countries with socialized medicine, it’s difficult to quantify the amount of money and resources that go into their system, which makes it impossible to gauge the impact they have.  Plus, many of them are in fact going broke, and their population pays the price with incredibly long waiting lists even for simple office visits.  People from other countries, most notably Canada, come to the U.S. in droves for various types of treatment.

We must be leery of politicians who promote national health care.  Keep in mind that making promises to have things taken care of for you is a long-lived tactic of politicians looking for votes.  It’s a power play, to prey on people’s needs and fears.  Politicians who propose ways for people to take care of themselves always pale in comparison. 

If we had a truly open-market for health care, and if people really did make health care their number-one priority, we could all afford decent routine health care.  And by lowering costs, it would follow that insurance would also become much more affordable, protecting everyone against high-priced but infrequent needs.  In short, we must realize that socialized health care would give us a never-ending death-spiral of dependency.  Let’s aim for the path that benefits us all.
Health Care