Captain's Quarters - Why Nationalizing Health Care Will Make Us Less Free in the comments section.Having been under the tender mercies of the military health-care system, I'd really prefer to NOT see socialized medicine. The common thoughts by those who support the idea is that somehow everyone's owed a particular standard of care. And that's all well and good, until you realize that somehow it's got to be paid for. And the money to pay for it will come in the form of taxes, above and beyond what you're paying now.People think that with the government paying the bill, they will get all the Health Care they "DESIRE". The analogy is if the government was in the car business, we should all get Mercedes.However, what will happen is care will be limited - TO ALL. Using the transportation analogy, we will all get to ride the bus, on a given schedule.
Except congress and the President. They get their healthcare at Bethesda and Walter Reed.
We're already paying a hefty 'tax' because we don't send the little guy to public school. We pay that tax voluntarily, because the schools aren't so hot in our neck of the woods. (Admittedly, this neck is significantly better than the neck we lived in before the little guy started school. Still, going from a 33rd percentile school to a 66th percentile school in the 49th state is a questionable improvement.) I'd LOVE to see school vouchers, or a tax credit of some sort - but that's not going to happen. After all, if you're so elitist that you won't send your kids to public school, you deserve the extra hit, don't you? (Regardless of the reason...)
Medical care isn't cheap. 18 years ago, I had to have 5 stitches in the back of my hand. It was a workman's comp claim - and three doctor visits and a handful of band-aids cost $650. When Hillary was touting her health-care plan, I remember the figure per year per EMPLOYED person in extra taxes would amount to about $750. Figure about 150 million people employed in the US, with a population of about 350 million. You run the numbers and tell me what each person's ration of that would be. Don't worry - I'll wait...
Dum-dee-dee-dum.... Finished?
You get $321.43? (I rounded that last eight tenths of a cent up.) Thought so. Figure 20% of that will go to administrative costs. You get $257.14 also? (I rounded the two tenths of a cent down.)
Yeah, that'll provide quality health care, won't it? Just don't ask what quality.
The end result? Likely you'll get care rationed, and triaged. Another comment...
What everyone has to remember is that it is not nationalized heath care- it is nationalized triage.There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. There ain't no such thing as 'free' healthcare... unless you're an illegal here in the US, but I won't go into that right now.Case in point:
I know a Canadian who developed a rather rare disorder. This person was always using the glorious Canadian health care system to bash me with on occasion. If treated quickly there is a good chance of survival-if not it was a slow, painful death. Well, when diagnosed he asked what they were going to do to treat it and he was told that seeing as he was 60 years old he would not "contribute" enough back into the system to justify the cost of treatment for him. This was their answer to him despite the fact that he had paid decades worth of high taxes to fund the system and had never used it for anything outside of routine illnesses or a couple stitches. In plainer terms they were going to let him die a painful death for "the greater good".
I asked him what he thought of his vaunted nationalized health care system after they told him that. He really didn't have a response. I pointed out to him that if he were on my heath care plan they would have treated him right away, and the money he would have spent for American health insurance would have been about half he spent in higher taxes to fund his blessed Canadian heath care system. I then asked him if he still thought the Canadian system was still so much better then the American system. He had no response to that, either. He bought into all the BS about how wonderful the Canadian system was compared to the American system until the Canadian system passed a death sentence on him.
Posted by: Ennis at June 4, 2007 5:50 PM
So when someone says the government can provide 'free' heath care, or SHOULD provide it, ask 'em how much they're willing to pay for it, and how many years they'd be willing to give up to get it.
J.
Comments (2)
The pluses of the Canadian system: preventative care.
Thats it! Yes if folks would take better care of themselves they would have all the benefits of the Canadian system without the *cost*. The Canadian doctors have been decrying their system for *years* and have worked private practices in their 'spare time' - which tells you how well the Canadian system works. That and Canadians coming to the US for diagnosis of diseases or treatment....
And the UK took a look between care there and here and came to the startling conclusion that patients in the US were better off, got newer drugs faster, and lived longer, especially for cancer treatment of all kinds.
I am on the Federal Employee system as a retiree and it is one where I pay a large portion of my health insurance, get to choose from plans that meet minimum criteria, and I get to decide the cost/benefit ratio between multiple plans. I like the idea and it is well worth the cost as it allows me to *plan* on things ahead of time. I make trade-offs for better emergency care and moderate co-pays and better all-around treatment although I do not like some of the plans nit-picky attitude towards medications I need to stay *awake*. Before that I took good preventative care of myself, limited health problems and continue to do so.
I am all for having health insurance available to everyone, so long as *everyone* pays for it themselves, even if the Federal needs to kick in a bit on the needy. Everyone should *pay* so as to not clog up the system and get this idea of self-reliance in place where one learns to recognize when something is wrong with them and *then* do something about it. Payments mean you don't do that on a *whim*. If hypochondriacs want to spend their entertainment money on seeing doctors and getting tests done, that is fine with me... notice they are paying for the privilege. The moment you make it *free* it becomes *worthless* and is clogged up over every single sniffle, bump, bruise and so on. Like Iran subsidizing gasoline and natural gas for years until it has now eaten into their ability to *export* those things. China does that, too, and gets stiff shocks when the government needs to increase the cost because *it* is running out of funds.
Until the Autodoc from Known Space is created, we had best learn to take better care of ourselves and ensure that we get medical care we need to stay alive. That nose job is *extra* - pay for it yourself.
Just keep the government from running it. Johnny had problems reading in 1958, and multiple levels of government tried to do something until the Dept of Education got set up to the tune of billions of dollars. Net result: Johnny is reading as well now as in 1958. And thousands of bureaucrats are employed trying to *not* end the problem. Wouldn't that be a joyous thing to have happen to health care?
Posted by ajacksonian | June 5, 2007 2:53 PM
Posted on June 5, 2007 14:53
Joyous? Um, that's not the word I'm thinking of!
Seriously - any candidate that promises 'free' health care won't get my vote. It shows a marked inability to understand how complex the situation is, and just how badly it's deteriorating in other countries.
I much prefer the present system, flawed as it may be.
J.
Posted by JLawson | June 6, 2007 11:57 PM
Posted on June 6, 2007 23:57