On Universal Health Care

The American health care industry is not living up to its purpose of providing quality health care for the people of the United States. About 50 million people are living without coverage[1]. While this is only 1/6 of the population, these are human lives that are being affected by lack of care. Many say that, because of this ‘huge’ number of people living without coverage, the US Government should intervene and hijack the health care industry, creating a Universal Health Care system. While the industry does need fixing, not just for those living without coverage but for the entire US population, a Universal Health Care (UHC) system is not the answer. A UHC system would deprive us of the basic freedom to pick how we as US citizens wish to be cared for. UHC could open the door to further socialization of the country and take us down the disastrous path that Western Europe has chosen to follow. The benefits of a UHC do not outweigh the heavy costs, both monetary and intangible, that would be put on the American people. There is much that the government and the health care industry, indeed much that the American people can do to fix our health care without bringing a universal system into play.

Above all, any Universal Health Care system would take away the individual freedom of choosing which health care provider or system is best for the individual consumer. It would also rob private hospitals and clinics of their ability to run their operations as they see fit. A Universal Health Care system, at least the types proposed by Sen. Hillary Clinton and other US advocates of the program and the types currently in use in other countries around the globe, would be instituted in such a way that the individual American would not have the opportunity and option of how to structure their plan. The individual American would also be paying for other people’s expenses. Someone who has never smoked a cigarette in their life would have to pay for an ailing smoker’s lifelong asthma and emphysema treatments. Someone who has eaten healthily their entire life and maintained a sound body would be paying for the obese person’s angioplasty. Having the government dictate what we can and cannot do in terms of economic issues (and make no mistake, Universal Health Care is as much an economic issue as it is social) robs the individual of his or her freedom to manage their personal economic welfare. The introduction of any highly Socialist Universal Health Care system, like the ones proposed, could open the door to socialization of other aspects of American life. One need only look at Europe to see what an undesirable consequence this is. One day, America could be a place where no religion can be discussed or demonstrated in public. America could become a place where elementary students are threatened to be indicted by the government for not inviting all classmates to a birthday party (See the recent case in Sweden). Is this really what the American people want for themselves?

Our capitalist economy, as stated by Adam Smith himself, is built around human greed; the desire for each person to do what is best for them. According to Smith, the only reason for someone to run a butcher shop would be for that person to make the money they need to feed their own families[2]. By having the governing body, a distant and sequestered group of people who may not understand what it means to actually work to make a living, strictly regulate how any business, whether it is a butcher shop or a hospital, goes against this basic principle. Government interference of any sort is not allowed in fundamentalist Capitalism, although now after a few hundred years of experience has shown to be necessary in certain situations. Health care is not one of those situations. Effects of attempting to socialize an industry that shouldn’t be subjected to such treatment can be found on our back porch, in Canada. The Canadian health care system is Universal. It is also failing. Proof can be found in the individual experiences people have. I had the opportunity to hear from a Canadian soldier (a SOLDIER, not just a layperson off the street) of his experience with the Canadian health care system. He had some sort of broken bone or fracture in his leg. While he was helped immediately for emergency care (as is any person in the United States, regardless of ability to pay), it took almost 7 months to complete follow up examinations and over a year until his cast was finally removed as the system was so backed up and inefficient. Is this really what the American people want for themselves?

The simple fact is that people care more for what they own. This is a fact that has been proven time and time again. Ronald Reagan, during his presidency, did several experiments with property. Interestingly enough, he has been our only president to have degrees in Economics[3]. One of his experiments involved going into one of the many rundown areas of Washington, DC and dividing a street in half. One side of the street was given their houses for free, paid for by the government, while the other side of the street paid several dollars a month in rent to stay in their houses. Over the next few months, the side of the street that stayed for free became more and more trashed and the side that paid the rent became cleaner and cleaner[4]. Because the people were paying directly for the right to stay in their houses, they took better care of their houses as a reflection on themselves. The same goes for health care. When a person is paying for their coverage, they are more likely to treat it with respect and not abuse (or overuse) it.

Another problem with the health care system is how it should be run. Again, it all boils down to economics. The cost of a vast health care system, one that will cover every little health problem that crops up, not to mention in order to pay the bureaucrats that will need to be hired to make sure it runs efficiently (no pun intended), would be astronomical. One idea that has been proposed in order to fix this problem would be to create a list of all of the known health issues and decide which ones will be covered and which won’t in such a way that the major illnesses are covered. People who are sick but don’t have the illnesses on the list would be out of luck and have to pay for their services, on top of all of the taxes they are paying to keep the government run system going. So much for Universal. This idea, however, raises even more issues. What should be on the list? Should asthma? Should asthma be included only for people born with the disease? What about people who develop it as a consequence of chugging down packs of cigarettes all of their life? What about people who develop it as a consequence of pollution? Considering how much time it takes the current congress to do anything, the amount of time it would take to come up with this system would be many, many years from now. But the problem is very real, and very current.

There is much that can be done to save our current health care system without implementing any UHC. Americans are aware of the very real problems in our system. The red tape and bureaucracy already surrounding health insurance are painfully obvious to anyone who has tried to claim their insurance. The everyday American citizen can do much to help solve the problem. Things as simple as reducing the number of people who smoke and working as a collective to get ourselves in better shape will reduce many illnesses. Asthma, emphysema, heart attack rates, stroke rates, gastric bypass surgeries, arthritis cases, etc. would all reduce, some even drastically in number from these two easy things. One thing that drives up the cost of health care is ‘unnecessary surgery.’ I will never forget the cover of a Parade magazine that showed a doctor, standing maliciously over a patient holding surgery tools, with the headline blaring, “HOW MUCH IS EXTRA SURGERY COSTING YOU?” Nowhere in the article did it mention that the main reason doctors do so-called ‘unnecessary’ treatments on patients, not to mention extra tests and checkups, is because they are terrified to misdiagnose the ailment of a patient and get sued by the patient or their families. Even if the doctor’s first diagnoses of a patient was correct, many doctors do multiple (expensive) tests on their patients, and may even go so far as to attempt to correct several potential problems in surgery, even if only one is correct to keep them legally covered. They are scared of getting sued. If the government were to better legislate and protect doctors from frivolous, time-wasting, and costly malpractice suits, that could save many people a lot of money[5]. There is no doubt there are bad doctors out there who should be punished for their negligence, but the number of good doctors who get swept up in these unnecessary torts is much greater.

Another problem the health care system industry seems to have is getting the latest technology in the hands of doctors and nurses. Every day, major scientific advances are made in the field of diagnosis and treatment. If these technologies could move quicker to the field, costs could be reduced. In the past few years, I have observed the flu shot go from the classic needle-in-a-bottle method to a one use, disposable prick that does the same job. According to Popular Science magazine, there are many advances in CAT scan technology that would drastically reduce the cost of the procedure that are being used in some hospitals around the country. Making these technologies more widely available would surely bring down the cost of health care, allowing those without coverage to afford at least basic care and allowing those with more advanced afflictions access to the best technology in use.

There is no doubt that there are problems with the way the United States does health insurance. There are clearly problems that need to be fixed. Nearly one of every six Americans is without healthcare. However daunting this number may seem, Universal Health Care is not the answer. It would deprive citizens of their basic ability to choose their own way of caring for themselves. In addition, a Socialist solution in a Capitalist system has been shown not to work. Indeed, it goes against the very principles of Capitalism. There are many things the United States, all the way from the government and health care industry to the individual citizen, can do to improve and even ‘fix’ the insurance system without needing to implement a Universal Health Care plan.

Works Cited
John McCain for President. John McCain on Health Care. 2008. www.johnmccain.com.
Senior Economics Lecture. Performed by John Laubmeier. Waunakee High School. 2006.
Senior US History Lecture, AP. Performed by John Laubmeier. Waunakee HIgh School. 2007.


[1] (John McCain for President 2008)
[2] (Laubmeier, Senior Economics Lecture 2006)
[3] (Laubmeier, Senior Economics Lecture 2006)
[4] (Laubmeier, Senior US History Lecture, AP 2007)
[5] (John McCain for President 2008)On Universal Health Care