Clarksville, TN Online: News, Opinion, Arts & Entertainment.

Recent Articles

« Older: TDOT’s HELP program celebrates ten years of service Newer: AG Extension Office to hold their July Webinar, Educational Meeting & Tour »

Arguments against universal health care

By Scott Beasley | July 15, 2009 |

images[1] Many people today confuse the concept of medical care with health care or health insurance. Universal Medical Care is already provided to all Americans. Universal Medical Care is available to people who qualify through Medicaid and Medicare offers Health Care to those who qualify. If you do not qualify, you’re expected to provide these services for yourself and your dependents through the private market, or through your employer.

There seems to be a growing sentiment across a socialistic-minded segment of our country to expound, and sometimes exacerbate, the millions of Americans who do not have Health Insurance. Many of today’s universal health care proponents and politicians like to use the numbers of anywhere from 30 million to 50 million people who do not have health insurance to promote a Universal Health Care system. They poke and prod at our hearts, explaining that innocent children are victimized by a broken system which seems to have forgotten about them and their needs. Victimization really works to exude a feeling of guilt amongst those of use who are fortunate enough to have health insurance, but the true question arises, is heath care a right or a responsibility? While the nation seems divided over such a volatile issue, it appears there are few coherent arguments for government intervention when we examine all the facts.

So what’s the impetus for this “crisis” the media has bestowed upon society? Cost! Its true that health care costs have risen significantly, but there’s more to the story than simply classifying the perceived problem as “rising costs”. We must ask ourselves why the costs are rising. In the past, we only spent a fraction of what we spend today on high tech medical procedures because there was not as many of them. The same holds true with pharmaceutical drugs because many of the ones today, didn’t exist 20 years ago. Likewise, automobiles didn’t cost the same when you considered the new high tech systems now included in the rising cost of a new vehicle such as navigation, cameras and computers. Many things we buy today have increased in cost because of the addition of new technology, but allowing the government to intervene so they can supposedly wave their magic wand and reduce the price is more than wishful thinking, its unrealistic and its impossible to speculate the effect it would have on the nation.

Truth be told, I do feel sorry for children who don’t have health insurance because their parents cannot provide it for them, but in many, if not most cases, they can, if they’d adjust their lifestyle and prioritize their spending. I won’t say they could “easily” afford it, because its not easy to turn off or cancel your cell phones, cable TV, Internet service, magazine subscriptions, bowling leagues, or alcohol and drug use. Its not easy to pass up “a great deal” on 22 inch rims, 50 inch flat screens, X-Box 360’s, Wii’s, Playstations, or a variety of other amenities vastly less important than providing health care for yourself or your children. Providing health care is not society’s responsibility, for it requires that service be rendered off the backs of others, and slavery was outlawed long ago.

Heath insurance is not medical care and likewise, health care is not the same as medical care. Countries with universal health care do not have more or better medical care than countries without it. Medical care is the issue, however the propaganda is about insurance. Many people who could afford health insurance as I pointed out earlier, choose not to purchase it because they spend their money elsewhere and they know that medical care will be available at the nearest emergency room, whether they have insurance or not. Young folks often do not anticipate long term illnesses and they can always get a broken leg or an allergy attack taken care of at an emergency room, thus allowing them to spend their money on a more upscale lifestyle. This may be a foolish mindset but it is their decision, and there is no reason why other people should lose the right to make decisions for themselves because some people make “questionable” decisions.

Many people critical of the health care industry appear to be cynical, claiming to know the costs of everything, yet they know the value of nothing. Just as medical care, houses and cars were all cheaper when they lacked amenities that they have today, so medical care in other countries is cheaper when they lack many things that are more readily available in the United States. People who believe in “universal health care” really have no concern regarding what that phrase turns out to mean in reality, especially in those countries where it already exists, such as Britain, Sweden or Canada. For example, “universal health care” in these countries translates into months of waiting for surgery that Americans get in a matter of weeks or even days.

In these and other countries, it means having only a fraction as many MRIs and other high-tech medical devices available per person as in the United States. There are more than four times as many Magnetic Resonance Imaging units (MRIs) per ca pita in the United States as there are in Great Britain or Canada, where there are government-run medical systems. There are more than twice as many CT scanners per ca pita in the United States as in Canada and more than four times as many per ca pita as in Britain. In these socialistic nations, it means not only having bureaucrats deciding what medicines the government will and will not pay for, but even preventing you from buying the more expensive medicine for yourself with your own money. That would violate the concept of true “equality” and the right to choose how you wish to spend your money.

If you’d rather have name brand medication, rather than the government prescribed generic brand, you’re out of luck. Its irrelevant if you wish to forgo the surround sound system you were saving up to install to accomplish this choice, for that choice would no longer be available. The cost of developing a new pharmaceutical drug is now about a billion dollars. Neither political rhetoric nor government bureaucracies will make those costs go away because it is government’s strict regulation and thorough testing procedures which has helped drive the cost up. We can, of course, refuse to pay these and other medical costs, just as we can refuse to buy air-conditioned homes with built-in microwave ovens, but that just means we pay attention only to prices and not to the value of what we get for those prices. We can even refuse to pay for so many doctors, but that just means that we will have to wait longer to see a doctor just like people do in countries with government-run medical systems. In Canada, 27 percent of the people who have surgery wait four months or more. In Britain, 38 percent wait that long, but only 5 percent of Americans wait that long for surgery.

Many proponents of a universal health care system will point out the longer life expectancies in some of these countries with universal health care as opposed to our own. On the surface it seems like a valid point to bring up this fact, but does universal health care translate into longer life expectancy? Is there a correlation? That is where the difference between health care and medical care comes in. Medical care is what doctors or hospitals can do for you. Health care includes what you do for yourself, such as diet, exercise and lifestyle. Health care can only be recommended, whether it be a government agency or a doctor, but it is your responsibility to follow those recommendations.

If a doctor arrives on the scene to find you comatose by a drug overdose or shot through the heart by some of your competitors in the illegal drug market, there may not be much that he can do except note the time of death and sign the death certificate. Even for things that take longer to kick the bucket such as obesity, alcohol, cholesterol, and tobacco, a doctor can only tell you what to do or not do, but its ultimately up to you and it’s your responsibility to take their advice or choose to do what you wish to do. On average, Americans tend to be more obese, consume more drugs and have more homicides. To assume any of this would magically change with a universal health care system is not only a very static analysis, but extremely naive.

You must look dynamically at the issue to grasp the reality for accurate medical care comparisons. You never hear supporters of universal health care mention the fact that cancer survival rates in America blow most other countries with universal health care out of the water. No one who compares medical care in this country with medical care in other countries is likely to want to switch, but those who cannot be bothered with the facts may help destroy the best medical care in the world by falling for political rhetoric.

images[2] Waiting for MRI’s and CT scans would all become much longer. I cannot emphasize the danger in this enough, as many from our neighbor to the north routinely cross the border and pay out of pocket for these services because of the months they’d have to wait up there. I recently had knee surgery and the MRI took less than a week to schedule and execute. Who knows if I’d had to wait 6 month’s to get one before I could have surgery what would happen. I know that “only” affects me right? Well what happens when everyone on those waiting lists are now drawing 6 months of disability while they’re out of work? What happens if many of them die from tumors during the wait?

The bottom line is health care is your responsibility. A government provided health care system can recommend you stop smoking, drinking and eating unhealthy foods, but they can’t make you. Socialized health care only expands government and destroys more of the freedoms we enjoy, for it must be funded off the backs of those who labor, to pay for those who can’t or won’t. There’s a difference.

A recent poll conducted by Austin Peay suggests that people in this area believe the government should “make sure” everyone has health insurance. While some may interpret this finding as support for universal health care, in reality, it could mean support for people to provide it for themselves and the government to make sure it is required by law, just like the laws requiring auto insurance liability. The disastrous effects of such a plan will have immediate and long term effects on our health care system. There aren’t as many doctors and medical equipment to house the immediate demand socialized medicine will create, oh, and the most important thing, WE CAN’T AFFORD IT. We could have if we were not 11 trillion dollars in debt, but we are.

Surgery may be cheaper in countries with government-run medical systems, if you count only the money cost, and not the painful weeks the patients have to endure the ailments that require surgery, or the fact that some conditions become worse, or fatal, while they wait. A report from the Fraser Institute in Canada shows that patients there wait an average of ten weeks to get an MRI, just to diagnose their condition. Bad things can happen in 10 weeks.

Politicians may talk about “bringing down the cost of medical care,” but they lack the comprehension of the word “costs”. What they bring down is the price, which doesn’t reflect the cost. Anybody can refuse to pay any cost, but then you get what you pay for. It does require us to stop and think before jumping on a Universal Health Care bandwagon. I’m always skeptical of government intervention in the first place because of their history of creating a crisis which doesn’t exists. The urgency with which this “crisis” is being perpetuated by fiery rhetoric coming from the White House and the fact its being rushed through Congress suggests that the politicians don’t want us to stop and think. They just want us to “hurry up” and do it, for rarely are any programs scrapped after they’re implemented. That makes sense, from their point of view, but not from ours. Lets all pause and think about whats occurring and be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. People need help, I understand that, but there’s a difference in asking for it, and mandating it be funded off the backs of others.

Share this article:

About Scott Beasley

I was born in Charleston, SC. I moved to Tennessee in 1977 and into Clarksville in 1989. I am currently employed by a shipping company and recently got married. I am conservative in most of my political views and I oppose government waste with a passion. I believe in personal responsibility and accountability. As far as my stance on the issues, I am against abortion, against the death penalty, I believe we did the right thing by invading Iraq(but we've made many mistakes since that decision), I believe we are over-taxed by an inefficient government at all levels, and I'm against gay marriage(though I have no problem with homosexuality, I believe it should be called a civil union and they should have all the rights as married couples.) I abhor racism and believe Martin Luther King to be the greatest asset to civil rights this country has ever seen. I believe a person should be viewed by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. I'm a Christian and believe the biggest problem in society today is abortion. I recently graduated from APSU and will now continue my education towards a degree in Political Science.

Web Site: http://www.myspace.com/beazgod
Email: beazgod@msn.com

Sections

Commentary

Topics

Health Insurance, Healthcare, Medicaid, Medicare

9 Responses to “Arguments against universal health care”

TJTaylor Says:
July 19th, 2009 at 10:24 am

Mr Beasley,

Your analysis of the US health care system is VERY simplistic. Many of the arguments you state against why people don’t have health insurance are condescending and stereotypical. They are not the 22 inch rim, 50 inch flat screen buying people you speak of. The majority of the uninsured are EMPLOYED Americans.

Many hard working Americans, both self-employed and employed do not have health insurance because they either can not afford it, or their employers can’t afford it. If you are making the average American wage of about 35K, there is no way you can pay $600-$700 a month the average individual insurance policy requires. Not only is it expensive, but in many cases, individuals are turned down by insurance companies.

I will give you a PERSONAL example. Seven years ago, I had gastric bypass surgery. I lost 100 pounds, and am now more healthy than I’ve been in years. I decided several years after my surgery to become self-employed. When I went to apply for medical insurance, I was turned down by EVERY insurer I applied for because I had this surgery…even when it made me healthier. Does that make sense?

Currently, you have millions of people who are unemployed that do not qualify for Medicaid. Do you believe that these people, some of whom worked all their lives but are in circumstances beyond their control, should not have access to health care? Should they only depend on emergency room care?

Universal health care means universal access to health care. Everyone should be able to purchase affordable insurance, and everyone should have access to good health care. Many people like yourself tend to view health care as a limited resource that you do not want to share. But believe it or not, you are sharing – sharing the cost of the uninsured. We all pay for the uninsured when they have to go to emergency rooms and can’t pay for their services. Those costs are passed on to others. Did you know that 40% of all bankruptcies in this country are medical cost related? Who has to pay for this? Why do you think you pay $7 for an aspirin when you are admitted in a hospital?

No one is speaking of socializing medicine. This is simply an argument that conservatives like yourself are using as an excuse to keep the status quo. The most “radical” proposal is to have a public insurance OPTION. No one is taling about MAKING people have to take “government-sponsored” insurance.

Just to make a point that “socialized insurance” is not as bad as you try to make it seem, ask the average senior citizen do they dislike their insurance? Ask the average federal employee do they believe their health insurance is inadequate? Ask members of Congress, all of whom are under Federal health insurance plans, do they feel their “socialized insurance” is horrible? There is a distinct difference in “socialized medical care” and “socialized insurance”, yet many people like yourself are trying to tie the two together.

One other point – what exactly do you think insurance is? In its basic form, insurance is a pool of money that a group of insured have contributed to in order to cover each other in the event of a loss. Sounds very socialistic to me!

If everyone has insurance,and we change the focus of medical care from expensive, late treatments to prevention and on-going treatments, we can cut costs, and I believe we can improve health care for everyone.

Tyrone J Taylor
Clarksville, TN

Scott Beasley Says:
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:08 pm

Actually Mr.Taylor my analysis is anything BUT simplistic. I never suggested that the uninsured were unemployed for they have insurance, its called Medicare. Your statistics are incorrect, so it appears YOU’RE analysis is the one very simplistic.

Ask the people on Medicare, Medicaid and our veterans who go to the VA hospital about “socialized health care”, or better yet, ask people in countries who have it and keep crossing our borders for treatment.

I’ve responded to your e-mails we can both agree on one thing. I’m for helping people who CAN’T afford insurance just like you. The difference is your perception of the people who supposedly “can’t afford it”. Additionally, you can’t cut the COST, only the PRICE. there’s a HUGE difference.

JBSmith Says:
November 5th, 2009 at 1:52 pm

I read this article and wonder how much research was put into it. First I would have to say I would agree with you if your stereotype had any more than just an ounce of truth. My first reaction when I meet people with this kind of attitude is “GOD put them in my shoes for even a few feet.” I don’t even expect you to travel anything close to a mile, just enough to get a taste of reality, and hopefully enough to knock the chip off your shoulder.

Please tell me how to properly prioritize my life. With an net working income of $1000 over $800 goes to pay for items like insulin (sorry to inform you there is no generic insulin), test strips, lancets (store brand works as good as name), and taking advantage of generic special (3 month supply generic meds for 9.99), and cutting corners for to go beyond the bare basics (I am supposed to have eyes checked once a year and haven’t had it done in 3 years.)

Lets add in Living expense #2, 325 a month for rent. I hope you can do some elementary math and recognized my problem already. $800+325 is just a little over $1000.

This don’t include paying for luxuries like food, gas in the car (I am to lazy to walk 25 miles to campus and back home each day). I am also to lazy to walk 35 miles to be on my feet for 10 hours working, and then walk 35 miles home.)

Currently My messed up priorities are #1 my health namely having insulin and supplies, #2 is a roof over my head. think #3 is a tie between electric, phone, and car insurance. car insurance being a bit higher on list actually because the state requires it.

I am not disabled, so I don’t qualify for medical or medicaid. And I made a $1.52 to much Gross income to qualify for assistance.

I know to some degree what the government offers is a joke but that actually defeats the argument of a government system killing competition. What you may not realize with a pre-existing condition no matter how absurd we are automatically damned. The only thing I can say is walk around the block in our shoes your eyes will be opened real quick.

Jaminio Says:
November 18th, 2009 at 11:54 am

As an Englishman now living in the USA there are still some parts of US life i can’t understand, the healthcare system is one of them. However, in the spirit of “judge not lest thee be judged” i feel i do need to correct some inaccuracies about the UK health system as it is frequently misrepresented in the press.

First off we do have HMO’s, private healthcare in the UK is well established and costs about $2000 per person p/a. It really is the top end of world healthcare, think of it as walking into the best hospital in the US and having any treatment, tests and a stay of several weeks but your insurance company can’t deny you anything that the doctor orders. Judges are extremely harsh on UK HMO’s and if they give you a policy, they have to pay.

The NHS is the free stuff. Yes it has its flaws, some of these are symptomatic of “socialized” health care such as waiting lists for operations but most are due to the shocking incompetence of the current government. It is worth bringing you up on the waiting lists, first off the long wait is for non-essential operations. I have never heard of any case being reported where someone died due to not getting treatment quick enough, and trust me, the newspapers would have a field day with that.

An example, 10 years ago my father notice a mark on his back, 1 day later he saw a doctor, 3 days later he saw a specialist who removed the mark as a precaution and had it biopsied, 7 days later the results came back that it was cancer, 1 day later he had a full set of skin and lymph tests, 4 days later he was given the all clear. The total cost of this? $0. the cost in premiums or not being eligible for insurance due to pre-existing conditions? Nothing.

As for expense, i currently live in New York and i pay more in tax here then i did when i lived in London.

I think the authors rather crude point about 22″ rims being more important than their child’s healthcare is more of the issue here than most American’s would like to believe. “Am i willing to pay for someone else who has squandered their own money?” is how universal healthcare is viewed by most i speak to here. This is similar to the call of “i don’t want higher taxes cos one day i’ll win the lottery”.

To finish, i will give you a rough statistic. in Canada, UK and France, around 7-8% of GDP is spent on healthcare. In the USA it is 15%. the three other countries have a much higher “wellness” rating than the US so where is that extra 5% of GDP going? The answer, is into the pockets of the HMO directors. The question i leave you with is, does the compensation of my HMO director mean more to me than my neighbours (or my own) health?

Scott Beasley Says:
November 18th, 2009 at 6:30 pm

JS Smith……I wonder how much “research” you put into your comment. That “chip” on my shoulder as you put it is reality and it appears you could use a does. Now that we have the elementary insults out of the way, would you care to engage in a civil discussion or do you want to trade insults?

I would need to know more about your income, but it sounds to me as if that needs to be addressed first. You need to obviously increase it. Moving closer to work may be one option. One can easily pay that rent(with roommates of course)and move closer to your work even if rent is higher. If you only make $1000 a month, you already qualify for numerous entitlements, including Medicaid. As for your pre-existing condition I must ask, why didn’t you bother to obtain coverage BEFORE you needed it? You waited until you got sick and now want to attempt to insult me, while wanting ME to pay for YOUR care? Hell, if everyone could just wait until they became ill to get insurance, why on earth would anyone bother to obtain insurance in the first place. Truly, your issue seems to be income, you are either not working 40 hours a week or your employer is breaking federal law by not paying you minimum wage. Perhaps more time looking for a better, or an additional job is in order rather than commenting on opinion pieces trying to guilt people into giving you a hand out.

Scott Beasley Says:
November 18th, 2009 at 6:47 pm

Jaminio, to begin with you admit the socialized system has flaws, and you blame the flaws on government incompetence. GOOD! Whom else would be responsible? Thanks for making my point.

As for your father, you are sadly mistaken. Are you telling me that the entire scenario you describe coast $0? I find that hard to believe! Are you telling me the doctor, the specialist and the numerous other lab technicians all agreed to do that work for free? Of course not, even to assume indirectly that it cost your father $0 is a static and very naive analysis. To begin with, he was TAXED to pay for the services rendered. As if that weren’t enough, his tax dollars also had to pay a government bureaucrat to determine how much each step of the process you described was “worth” in their opinion. Then monies have to be allocated and distributed, consisting of overhead costs, administrative expenses, etc. Are you suggesting the government can do that better than the private sector? Bottom line is that it did not cost your father NOTHING.

Comparing taxes in New York to London, or any metropolitan area to another has very little to do with the issue. Lets assume, hypothetically, that England and the US had exactly the same taxes. Does England have $11 trillion in debt? Does England pay over $400 BILLION each year, just on the interest of the money they already owe? You’re making an apples to oranges comparison in that aspect.

Why do people call the point of 22 inch rims crude? My point is regarding prioritization or the lack thereof among many Americans. Its certainly nothing new, but this demand for “free” health care certainly is. So would you be opposed to mandating people turn off their cable TV, internet, cell phones, seel their big screens, 22 inch rims, X boxes and playstations, and THEN, after adjusting their income based upon those circumstances, pay a protion of their health care cost accordingly? Would you rather they get to keep all the amenities I mentioned and still pay for it? They should be entitled to cable TV shouldn’t they? In essence, by condoning thier irresponsible spending, that’s precisely what you are saying.

The 5% GDP number you cited was quite laughable. Try looking at insurance companies profit MARGIN. Educate yourself by comparing that to others, then come back to me after you think about it.

Jaminio Says:
November 19th, 2009 at 7:42 am

Scott, Your points are valid however i feel that in comparing the current healthcare bill to the nationalized systems in Europe is unfair. Interestingly i read the explination by Congressman Kucinich as to why he voted no and i have to say he hit the nail on the head.

The point I was trying to make with regards to my father was how quick and effect the NHS is when faced with serious illnesses. Also, that there was no extra money to pay and insurance compaines to fight for treatment. Death and Taxes, like long term costs are excluded from the cash flow, you cant avoid them so you cant take them into account.

You asked about the HMO profit margins? well i did, United Health had revenues of $88bn, its SG&A and OP totalled $20bn… that’s over 22% of premiums and related investment profit that isn’t being spent on healthcare.

What it seems your argument is based on is that you don’t believe, as do many American’s that either the government cannot run your healthcare as efficently as the private sector, or that you simply do not trust the government with it.

A quick numbers breakdown, the USA actually spent 16% of its GDP or $2.2tn on healthcare last year, thats around $7200 for everyone in the country. The UK spent 8% or $200bn and $2900 per person. If the President said that he could implement a totally universal nationalized healthservice for $880bn per year would you want it? The saving of $1.3tn is more than the entire US military budget (including debt on past wars, homeland sec state deparment budget and NASA is $1.1tn). I guess the question is do we honestly believe that the government can deliver?

Scott Beasley Says:
November 19th, 2009 at 7:40 pm

I agree about comparing health care systems, that should also carry over into comparisons of infant mortality rate, longevity and GDP should it not? Why is unfair to compare one aspect and not the other?

As for the profit MARGIN of insurance companies, I guess you still don’t understand. Total revenue is not profit margin. Its irrelevnt if your revenues were $88 billion, especially if your expenses were $89 billion. Look at the profit MARGIN. Specifically the Congressional Budget Office and their analysis of insurance companies administrative costs and their overhead. It accounts for an average of 12% across the board for every dollar spent and as low as 7% for larger companies,that INCLUDES profit and advertising. Here’s a link that may help you get some much needed facts, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/administrative_costs_in_health.html , if you care to take a look, I think there’s a link to the actual study in the article.

As for the costs of health care, that doesn’t reflect the PRICE and vice versa, and no, I wouldn’t be in favor of any type of government health care, for in order for them to provide it, they first must take from someone. Health care is a personal responsibility, not a right. A doctor or a government bureaucrat can only suggest you stop smoking, eat healthy and exercise, they can’t make you, lest we resort back to slavery, so no matter what the pundits say, the burden rests on your shoulders personally, not society.

Scott Beasley Says:
November 19th, 2009 at 8:46 pm

Like so many clever things that are said, this argument depends on confusing very different things, specifically, “health care” and “medical care.” Medical care is a limited part of health care. What we do and don’t do in the way we live our lives affects our health and our longevity, in many cases more so than what doctors can do to provide medical care. Americans have higher rates of obesity, homicide and narcotics addiction than people in many other Western nations. There are severe limits on what doctors and medical care can do about that. If we are serious about medical care, and we should be serious, since it is a matter of life and death, then we should have no time for clever statements that confuse instead of clarifying. If we want to compare the effects of medical care, as such, in the United States with that in other countries with government-run medical systems, then we need to compare things where medical care is what matters most, such as survival rates of people with cancer. The United States has one of the highest rates of cancer survival in the world. For some cancers, the number one rate of survival. We also lead the world in creating new life-saving pharmaceutical drugs. All of this can change in a heartbeat for the worse, if we listen to clever people who think they should be running our lives.

Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Personal Controls

The Roxy Regional Theatre presents A Streetcar Named Desire

Recent Articles