Universal Health Care: Bad for one's health
Universal health care is one of the most fiercely debated issues in our society. These debates to discover the best solution to the current health care crisis have greatly heightened with the upcoming presidential primaries and election, as well as the recent release of Michael Moore’s controversial movie, “Sicko.” Critics of our current system praise the so-called “free” health care, provided in countries such as Great Britain, Canada, and Cuba, while supporters cherish their right to choose their doctor and the ability to have immediate access their provider.
Many liberals find it irresistible to cite the almost 50 million uninsured people in America as evidence that the government needs to run our health care system. What they do not point out is that almost 20% of those uninsured in America are illegal immigrants who broke the law by crossing into our country without permission. This is one of the biggest issues with Hillary Clinton’s proposed promise of “health care for all.”
This is not about being cold hearted; it simply is not a good idea to reward illegal immigrants with free health care. “The right to health care” is not guaranteed in our constitution. If someone wants health care, they need to buy it, along with any other product they purchase for their own good. Further, a form of universal health care already does exist, since federal law mandates that emergency care be provided to everyone.
Another lefty chant for universal health care promotes the idea that Americans spend way too much money on health care. However, why is it the government’s right to choose the amount we must spend, and who knows what that proper amount is? If I, as an American citizen, want to spend 20% of my income on health care, that is nobody’s business but mine.
Yes, in theory it would be nice to get health care for free. But like many things that look nice on paper, the theory gets blown to shreds when it is put to the test. Say that you injure your ankle and need to get an MRI to assess the damage. In America, you could get one in a matter of days. However, in Canada the wait could be several weeks or even months. Which system would you rather use? We have the best health care system in the entire world. There is a reason why foreign dignitaries routinely fly to the U.S. to receive their yearly physical exams.
Another important point that many liberals often gloss over is how hard our private pharmaceutical companies work to create new drugs to help us feel better and live longer. Why do they work so hard? It is because they, like all corporations, are motivated by profit. Pharmaceutical companies know that the better their drugs are, the more people they will help, and the more money they will make. Profits are not a bad thing; this is a win-win situation. Creating a government-run health care system would deplete the market of our brilliant scientists and doctors who help people everyday. If there is no way for a doctor to reach the top of his field and make more money, why would he or she go through the effort to become a doctor in the first place? That person would be better off entering the private sector where there would be no cap on his or her earnings.
The best question to ask is: Does the government make things run better and more smoothly? Do people like going to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to get their driver’s license renewed? No, they do not. Going to the DMV is awful because it is a government-run monopoly that has absolutely no incentive to get better and please its customers. Do we really want to turn a trip to the doctor’s office into a hellish experience like a trip to the local DMV? Our health is simply far too important to put it in the trust of our government.
Comments
I agree
I've debated this topic numerous times stating the same points that were outlined here. I was a health care administration major in college and this topic came up many times. I totally disagree with Hillary Clinton's plan of universal health care based on the same point that Barrack Obama makes about her plan being that you can't force people who can't afford health care to buy health care. Obama has a better idea although it will leave some people still uninsured it will create much more access to health care for those uninsured. Great article!
I definitely stand for
We should be allowed to choose the right medical care. I think, this way, we will stop blaming everybody else for our problems and start being more responsible with the decisions we make. The way I see things, we still have a long time ahead of us before things will change for better. Either way, I try to maintain a healthy lifestyle so I won't have to depend on this defective system.
I partially agree
With no way for a doctor to move up in the system and earn more, they would probably not work as hard and the quality of care could go down. Maybe if there was some sort of incentive, like if the overal quality of health of the patients that go to a certain clinic improve, the ones responsible get a bonus. But before that, a doctors reason for becoming a doctor should not be for profit, it is a positive, but should never be the main reason. A doctors job is to help people, if they do not enjoy helping people and only think about profit, then why take a profession whose job, for the most part, is to save lives. That itself is a payment, to save a life. Also I personally have a friend in Canada who broke his ankle and recieved treatment for it the very same day, waiting no longer than 30 minutes.
Post new comment