Nationalized Health Care: The Counter Argument

          The money quote: “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it’s free.”

          There are problems with health care, but what are the solutions?

          Former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders has stated that she “supports public health over profits in health care reform.”  What are profits in health care?  Profits, it could be argued, are that which a doctor takes home after paying the rent for the establishment, the workers in the family physician’s office, the health care of himself and his employees, malpractice insurance, and on and on.  Let’s say that our doctor is a young doctor.  If that’s the case, he has spent twelve years in school; he has spent a number of years as an intern putting in hours that would drop a horse; and he has probably sacrificed a great deal of his time and social life to be a doctor.  My point in bringing this up is that we have to give a young person the incentive to become a doctor.  Let’s say that we have a young urban professional that is so talented that he can become anything that he wants to become.  Let’s say this kid is brilliant.  Why would he want to become a doctor under a regime that is going to cap his pay?  Officials that are promoting this form of health care are saying that they will do nothing in the tort reform arena, but they are saying that they will cut all other costs…including a doctor’s salary.  What happens to his college loans?  The government will pay them you say, who is going to want to enter a government run health care school?  What kind of teachers are going to want to teach in a school that caps their salary?  They should do it from their heart you say.  I think all medical professionals should do what they do for their fellow man you say.  No one desires becoming a good doctor for the money alone.  Most of those who sacrifice so much in life are, by nature, altruistic individuals, but the fact that they are well paid for their sacrifice attracts the young and brilliant.  I can’t stand listening to a friend of mine complain about a finger on their blister.  These guys patiently listen to people in pain for a living, and they love what they do.  How come we are considering these people more often in this argument?   

          The current pool of doctors is roughly 88,000 in number.  The current population of The United States numbers around 300 million in total.  What percentage of this population seeks treatment for inconsequential procedures, and what percentage puts it off for a time because it is inconsequential or too expensive?  What percentage of the population will seek treatment for the inconsequential immediately if there is no upfront cost?  How will this affect the consequential procedures and the wait therein?  England and France have about 60 million in their population, Germany is just over 80 million, and Canada is somewhere around 30 million.  They are able to maintain their health care system to some degree, but theirs is still something of a disaster by most accounts.  The British, the French, the Germans, and the Canucks have had the system in place for some years, and they are used to waiting for a number of months for a Catscan, but an American is not used to waiting, or if they do wait they want a good reason for doing so. 

          Then we have the idea of medical advancements.  There are some who say that the reason that Europe and Canada are afforded the “luxury” of socialized medicine is because they count on the medical advancements made in America.  What happens when America joins those who offer socialized medicine?  What happens to the ABC pharmaceutical company that produces the latest in medicine and medical technology when a regime steps in and puts a cap on their research and development department? 

          In the end, our health care system is in need of reform, but to what degree?  Who do we put in charge of it?  The government?  I don’t care if you are Democrat or a Republican, do you really believe that out of touch bureaucrats should be placed in charge of such a vital system?  Under the current bills being proposed, government officials would not be participating in that which they are proposing.  So they want to be in charge of it, but they don’t want the decisions they make to affect them?     

          Even if government run health care exceeds expectations there will be problems, and what happens when these problems arise?  Politicians are notorious for not fixing problems.  Politicians like problems.  If there are no problems, politicians have nothing to run on.  This is relatively fine when it comes to building that park in central square, but when you need a blood transfusion and you’re informed that there is a government sanctioned wait list procedure that puts you on a three month waiting list, how patient are you going to be with the politician that won’t fix the problem right away?   

          And one more thing that will inevitably take place if government takes over the health care industry…there’s no rolling it back.  We won’t be testing this out to see how it goes.  Once it’s in place, our society will begin to see it as a right.  Welfare and Social Security and that one percent rise in sales tax in your state were all temporary cures for the emergency of the day, but once the legislature got it past us how eager were they to roll it back when the need was satisfied?  How eager is any government body to serve the public beyond serving its own best interest?


Thank you for your comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.