Assessment of universal health care

Image attribution: Kborer. US-PD

Universal Health Care likely means lower and slower quality of health care services, increases in taxes, bureaucracy, and unnecessary government spending. A Los Angeles Times article entitled 'Universal healthcare's dirty little secrets' illustrates these points. It is a lack of faith in the ability of American citizens to make informed decisions for themselves in addition to an unconsidered write off of any private/public hyrbrid health care solution and the principles of capitalism in and of itself. "So what is potentially fiscally functional solution?" you may ask.

Government can regulate what isn't in its control, it has done this before with anti-trust, federal approval of drugs, federal oversight of building code etc. The Government does not have to have absolute control of health care to assist in a solution. Possible solutions include, cost caps, legalized private insurance, co-op insurance, partially subsidized insurance, federal investment insurance and so on. The amount of solutions are as many as a creative bureaucrat can think of.

To illustrate further, think of a small community of around 100 people. 2 within the community are doctors. Let's assume the average income is 30k and the tax increase is 10 percent or $3000/year. Even if the tax increase were only 5 percent that would be $1500 or $125/month per person. Incidentally that could get you fairly decent private insurance. Given there would be a tax increase of 5-10% does it make more sense to have more or less control of one's health care? If one pays the taxes, the Government decides for you, if you pay for private insurance you decide.

The next point in this opposition to universal health care is in regard to high hospital bills and ever increasing private medical costs. This is clearly and issue and has the potential to wipe out many families savings. It does not mean a thoughtful fiscally conservative solution to the problem does not exist, and it is unreasonable to assume that such a solution does not exist.

Economically, the healthier a nation is, the less health insurance individuals should need. This being the case the Government may be better off spending one percent of taxes to promote healthier lifestyle than 5 percent fixing the problems created by poor lifestyle choices. Even if only 25 percent of the population becomes healthier from a healthy living campaign that's a net savings of 10 percent off the five percent of taxes since only one percent was spent and 25 percent of five percent is 1.25 percent. Subtract the one percent healthy living campaign expenses from the 1.25 percent and that's 25 basis points the Government saved itself and tax payers. On a grand scale of say a billion dollars, that would mean savings of two and a half million dollars.

Yet another reason universal health care should be avoided is because people often know more about their health than the Government or its potential doctors ever will. An optimized plan that doesn't increase taxes, decreases Government spending and allows for affordable contributions from employers and individuals could be as follows. 

Every individual in the country is legislated to pay $20.00/month to a private health insurance plan and subsidized for this payment by a decrease in personal vehicle property taxes at the State level, and a federal subsidy paid for by a fractional decrease in some of the less useful Government programs. Furthermore, additional funds can be generated from mandated sliding scale minimum contributions from employers based on employer profitability calculations. 

In theory this type of system would pay for itself and probably generate a surplus if managed well. Under such a system individuals would still have the freedoms associated with private health insurance and pay less for it. Similar health care systems are currently being proposed by legislators and Governors nationally.

Lastly, when Government takes things over, things get slowed down. In the Canadian health care system people often have to wait for longer periods to get crucial surgery and vital medical attention. With a private system, if someone has the insurance, they get the medical attention they need. Why sacrifice a perfectly good system with a few glitches for a complete overhaul. It's simply not necessary.

To summarize the positions made henceforth, the following points have been made in this opposition:

• Universal Health Care implies there is no hybrid or private solution as good.
• Health Care problems can be repaired without system overhaul.
• Responsible regulation yield better results both fiscally and medically. 
• Health care is a personal issue and should be an individual choice.
• Federalization of services often leads to a decline in quality.

The evidence is clear, a simple deferment to Universal Health Care is negligent of sound Capitalistic principles that have the potential to yield outstanding health care to many if not all Americans. Federal regulation is not universal health care but can adjust the benefits of a universal system so long as many interest groups priorities are considered and no doorway to universal health care is left open. In other words an advantageous health care system emphasizing private coverage under a moderate position can be nationally beneficial. In order to be beneficial it would ideally lowers cost, expands availability, enhances public health and benefits the country as a whole without being a stepping stone to Universal Health Care.