Posted on 09/28/2004 1:19:47 PM PDT by johnnyb325
One of the greatest dreams of American liberals is a nationalized health care system similar to the one in Canada. They argue in favor of such a system because they believe health care is a basic "right," and because they believe the current system is flawed beyond repair. As with most problems, they advocate government solutions, not private enterprise solutions. Unfortunately, the government has an abysmal record of correcting problems, and American health care would be no exception.
First, let's examine the "right to health care" claim. Obviously, there is no right to health care established in the U.S. Constitution. However, we do have a moral right to health care, some will argue. Unfortunately, those who make this argument do not understand what a "right" is.
A "right" is the ability and autonomy to perform a sovereign action. In a free society founded on the ideal of liberty, an individual has an absolute ability to perform such an action - so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of another individual. Health care is not speech: In order for you to exercise a theoretical "right" to health care, you must infringe on someone else's rights. If you have a "right" to health care, then it means you must also have the right to coerce doctors into treating you, to coerce drug companies into producing medicine and to coerce other citizens into footing your medical bill. This is Orwellian. "Freedom" for you cannot result in slavery for others. Thus the concept of a "right" to health care is an oxymoron: It involves taking away the rights of other individuals.
Surely, though, we can agree that doctors, the pharmaceutical industry and insurance companies earn excessive profits, you say. Well, that depends on what your definition of "excessive" is. Doctors literally hold the lives of their patients in their hands. How much is someone who saves lives everyday worth? The same is true of pharmaceutical companies. While it has become fashionable to condemn their profits, the fact is that these profits fund medical research, which leads to more medicines being produced, and, consequently, more lives saved. Insurance companies spread the cost of health care among many people who might not otherwise be able to afford it, and thus make health care readily available for many.
While on the topic of profits, we should examine them. The word "profit" is considered to be a dirty word by many on the political left, but why? What makes a profit bad? Nothing. On the contrary, profits are very positive. When you come to class in the morning, there is a good chance you either drive a car or ride a bus. Do you think the bus driver and the workers who built your car or the bus did so that you could get to school on time? Of course not, they did because they wanted to make money. Yet their pursuit of a profit benefited them as well as you.
Adam Smith once said, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest." As we have seen, profits and self-interest are not bad things.
Let's pretend, for a moment, that the left gets its way, and the United States adopts a universal health care system. This profit motive will effectively be removed. Doctors will then be government employees, and, as such, have far less accountability, as well as lower pay. Could we still expect the best and brightest to strive to be doctors? Probably not. More than likely, they will pursue other careers where they can make more money.
Some love to bemoan the fact that the United States is one of the few industrialized nations without a government health care system. Yet they rarely note that the United States produces disproportional amounts of the new, life-saving drugs, largely because of the profits drug companies make. Will we continue to produce these drugs if we abolish the profit motive? Not likely. Chances are, they will not be produced at all, and more people will needlessly suffer and die as a result.
When we examine countries that have embraced socialized medicine, we find long waiting lists, expansive red tape and little concern for the individual. Do you really want to be told which doctor to go to? Do you want to wait years to have necessary medical procedures performed? If so, then socialized medicine is for you.
But if you believe in individual rights, competent healthcare and sound economic policies, we must get the government out of the doctor's office.
- John Brown is a senior in political science. He can be contacted at jbrown44@utk.edu.
The problem is that people are coerced all the time into providing for others in this country to the point where it is assumed to be a right. Socialized medicine is just a logical extention of what is pervasive.
I think you need to take your view somewhere else if you can't be civilize. As for "whose country has capitulated to terrorits", heard of the American-Mexican border?
My point was that teachers make little money, yet we still have them.
The same is true of doctors here in Spain, though they do make more than teachers.
"And when there are no profits to be made by being a teacher, what are we going to be left with in the classroom?"
The PATHETIC teachers which currently infect our public school classrooms.
Socialized medicine is another one of these liberal ideas that sounds great on its face, but can never really happen in a way that more people are helped than can be helped in a capitalist health care system.
"Socialized medicine is another one of these liberal ideas that sounds great on its face, but can never really happen in a way that more people are helped than can be helped in a capitalist health care system."
But isn't the biggest advantage to nationalized health care precisely that it serves *everyone*?
If I needed water and food, I could get it for free. Not the same with health care.
I find it hard to understand why subsidizing something essential like health care with taxpayer money is ridiculed, while building roads, courthouses, and bridges with the same money doesn't get half the scutiny.
Yes, I've heard of the American Mexican border. You ever heard of the failed cannuck socialist healthcare system? just curious.
libs_kma has hurt my delicate little bleeding heart lefty feelings.
I've now changed my screen name to something more appropriate, less sarcastic and more respectful of the kind of posts that rule in this thread.
"Liberal scum" is now "shakeup".
But you justified the "right to health care" by reference to the DHR "right to health and well-being".
And you're in good company. most socialists do the same.
WHY do you think "society" (whatever that is) can bestow any rights?
What if society bestows the right to be Jew-free?
Should the Jews all toddle off to Dachau?
The rights which form the basis of the United States government were not bestowed by society-not a single one.
The architects of the American system were crystal clear about the source of the rights they banded together to defend-and it wasn't "society".
Would the quality, convenience and choice of the "free" stuff be equal to that of what you'd have to buy?
And it's only free to the user, not society.
I find it hard to understand why subsidizing something essential like health care with taxpayer money is ridiculed, while building roads, courthouses, and bridges with the same money doesn't get half the scutiny.
Because it's not feasible for individuals to build all those things. Theoretically, the government should only be financing and buying what it's impractical for individual citizens to do.
Are you *sure* you're a Libertarian????
ok shakeup. I'm getting over my initial anger now. But I'd still rather refer to you as liberal scum if you'll be so kind as to indulge me that favor.
So you would privatize all public works?
I think one thing I'm realizing as this thread progresses is that to me moderation and balance appeal most to me.
A mixture of free market and government intervention seems to be the way -- sort of a checks and balances system. Each has its strengths, and I think they compliment each other nicely. Why give up either? Why not figure out which one works best where?
Sometimes I get the feeling conservatives want to completely eliminate government. Is that true? If not, where do you draw the line? What should be private and what should be public?
It is not intended to be the DU of the right, and, in my opinion (YMMV) you aren't doing a good job of holding up the side.
Shakeup is arguing his points as well as anything that rests on false premises can be argued, try to answer him back.
Feel free. I'll read a wink into it every time you do. ;-)
Anyway, I'm happy to discuss health care if you are.
"But isn't the biggest advantage to nationalized health care precisely that it serves *everyone*?"
You're still not correct, as "everyone" can never be treated equally. Even with a socialized system, there are only so many hearts that can be transplanted. Chemotherapy nurses can only work on so many people. There are only so many surgeons to perform so many surgeries. In my mind, there is absolutely nothing wrong with making better health care available to those who can pay for it. It's another example of how free markets can level out the playing field. Those who cannot pay, simply get sick and don't get taken care of, and in turn have smaller families.
Thanks for the defense.
Regarding political philosophy, I'm afraid it's not my strength. What source of rights do you refer to when you talk of the founding fathers? Is it God?
Yep, this is not my day for this conversation. I'll admit to going a bit over the top and I'll remove myself from the thread. I have no beef with your sentiment as it pertains to this issue, but I must admit that I didn't have to read too far into your posts to find similar behavior. Anyway, thats neither here nor there. I enjoy FR too much to make this a into a big incident and I apologize to any I've offended.
Socialized Medicine:
The efficiency of the Post Office
The compassion of the DMV
And the skill of the Sanitation Department.
Japan.
Here's a salient quote from the Japanese government:
Along with the improvements in living standards and better nutrition, the health insurance system has contributed in achieving levels of average life expectancy of the Japanese people and healthy life expectancy that are amongst the highest in the world. In addition, the health insurance system has also created an outstanding health and medical service which was indicated as the best in the world by the World Health Organization (WHO).Average life expectancy has remained the highest in the world. In 2003, it was 85.33 years for women and 78.36 years for men. The infant mortality rate fell to 3.0 per 1,000 live births in 2003.
I don't know of any Japanese (many of whom certainly could afford it) coming to the U.S. for medical treatment.
However, it is an expensive system, on par with our own, though less expensive than the Canadian/U.K. systems (which in my opinion, seem to try to offer minimal service at a maximal cost.) Here is a good quote from the same page about the future economics of the system:
In recent years, Japan's social security system has fallen under close examination due to such factors as rapidly changing demographics resulting from the falling birthrate and aging population, and long-term stagnation of the economy. In terms of social security costs, benefits and burdens are projected to increase far beyond the level of economic growth, and revision and creation of a sustainable system have become urgent issues to deal with the increasingly heavy social security burden predicted in the future.
Japan is a wealthy country, and for the present can afford such a gold-plated solution, though there are legitimate questions about what to do as the population grays. My personal experience with the system is that is indeed as excellent as their government and WHO indicate.
My experience has also been that the Japanese payment system certainly was simple enough to navigate, unlike trying to deal with the "insurers" in the U.S. who in my experience seem oddly reluctant to pay on claims against them, though happy enough to charge extortionate premiums.
As you might guess, Japanese medical technology is first-rate; anecdotally, I have heard a Japanese medical technician remarking that typical medical equipment in the U.S. is not as far advanced as what is typical in Japan.
Free Market Capitalization should provide business with enough incentive and tax breaks to allow them the means to offer Basic Coverage; getting the government out of this vital area; we all need to see deregulated!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.