With the dangerous swine flu causing a lot of unrest around the globe, it can be assured that health care will take a front row seat in the minds of the people and the government. As the Obama administration pretends to look for solutions, while masking their true power-trip agenda, they will no doubt continue to push harder and harder for some type of nationalized health care. They will push for said plan by masquerading the idea that health care is a universal right, that it is unacceptable that not every American have access to treatments, doctors, prescriptions, etc... It will sound noble, descent, and desirable. But there is a grave problem with this philosophical notion. Here I attempt to argue against the nationalization of health care on the basis that health care is, quite frankly, not a right. Furthermore, by declaring it as a right and subsequently nationalizing the industry, we end up sacrificing an incredible amount of liberty.
Some argue that health care should be no different than fire or police departments. Here is the problem. Fire departments and police departments help protect us from situations that are beyond our control, usually caused by the actions or decisions of others. Our rights our violated when a burglar enters our home, and there is little we can do to prevent our neighbors from letting their home go up in flames (and risk having those flames jump over to our property). When it comes to our health, however, much of it has to do with the choices that we make. Of course their are genetic diseases that have very little to do with our own choices, and we all catch the cold every once in a while, but it there is no way to completely diagnose any health related problem as being a function of lifestyle or any other variable.
So we come to fat Albert. Fat Albert wants nothing more than to live out his life eating potato chips, smoking cigs, and downing cheap beer. Is it a lifestyle that he has the right to live? Of course. Is it healthy? Of course not. So what happens when his liver starts failing, he develops lung cancer, and his heart starts giving out? In a free society, with private health care, he must pay the consequences for his own actions. He can either pay for the costs himself, or sadly, die young. The point is that you and I aren't forced to pay for his medical bill.
But if we are to declare that health care is a universal right, than by necessity he should get all the treatment available, at our expense. Bypass surgery, lung and liver transplants, all on our tab. But no one is going to want to do that. It would outrage even the most extreme liberal. So what would happen? We would start being told how to live our lives. Regulations and government interventions would seek to do everything possible to force us to adopt certain, "approved" lifestyles. No longer would we have the freedom to eat potato chips and sit on our couch all day long. Now, don't misunderstand me, I am not praising that type of lifestyle, but I am defending the right to live it if one should decide that it fulfills their pursuit of happiness.
You see, health care is a privilege, not a right. Because it is a privilege, it must be something we work for and the consequences thereof must be our own to endure. Can you even imagine the wreckless abuse that will take place if you convince people that health care is a fundamental right on par with the freedom of speech and religion? Chaos would ensue and American health care would begin a long spiral downwards towards the failure that has become of other countries that have nationalized their own health care industries.
Long lines, overworked doctors, sub-par equipment, and inadequate treatments would only be the beginning. Important decisions regarding treatment would be made by bureaucrats, not doctors. And those who worked hard and who could afford top quality health care? Sure, they would be taxed to high heaven, but they would be ushered to the back of the long lines like everyone else. And that doesn't even begin to describe the enormous deficit increases that would befall an inefficient and irresponsible government trying to manage something that they literally have no idea how to do.
There are no doubt problems with our current health care situation. There are unfortunate tragedies that befall good, hard working individuals who simply cannot afford the right treatments. Health care is too tied up with corporate benefits, and at times even those who can afford it are still denied by unscrupulous health care companies. But nationalization is not the answer. Fortunately, we do have government subsidized health care programs for those who truly need it. Unfortunately, even those programs get abused far too much. In the end, I believe the difference between people believing that health care is a privilege that must be earned and a right that can be abused will make a tremendous difference in the effectiveness of any plan to improve our current situation.
What do you think?
3 comments:
I don't know if anyone arguing for health care ever reads anything when they go to a doctor, but their forms all state that treatment will not be denied based on the ability to pay. To me, that sounds like everyone is free to get the treatment they need (not want).
Putting government in charge of health care is a horrible idea. You brought up the bureaucrats, who decide what doctor you go to, what treatment you receive, and ultimately what actions you are able to take. That doesn't sound like freedom to me. Any woman who has had an epidural while giving birth will extol the virtues of such fine anesthesia, but in Sweden, often pointed to as a socialist utopia, the government will not allow you to get one.
Also, nobody seems to want to bring up the government's current attempt at health care: Medicare and Medicaid. We will spend almost $700 billion on these two programs this year, or $5400 per taxpayer. These systems are incredibly abused and are generally ineffective. Just watch some Matlock on TV and the commercials during the breaks will inevitably be for a free power chair (to be paid in full by Medicare) and supplemental Medicare insurance. Is a Jazzy a right? If the system covers everything necessary, why is supplemental insurance ever needed? These programs are marginally effective and hugely expensive, definitely not a program that should be expanded.
By Ralph G Brown: It appears to me that we are in general agreement, i.e Individual freedom to choose. I agree that the nationalization of health care is absolutely unacceptable but there may be some differences in our philosophies about how to pay. Until you have had the experience of not being able to pay for a catestrophic illness it may be easy to ignore the possibility that it may happen to you. The solution? Perhaps a reformation of Medicare and Medicade where the client kicks in a bigger but reasonable premium and the Gov picks up the rest. Also it would help if doctors and their facilities were not so high. End of comment
I agree Grandpa, it is hard to truly understand what a catastrophic illness can be like financial for someone like me, who has not had to go through that. I fully believe in the principle that if a person has done all they can to be responsible and earn the privilege of health care by working hard and being prudent, of course there should be help available after they have done all they can.
The problem is, as we both know, that too many people demand benefits and entitlements far before they have done all they can to earn them. This is absolute injustice for the rest of us who work so hard for what we have. It is these people that make health care so expensive, and by feeding them the idea that it is their right will only make the problem worse.
To be honest, I don't have a perfect plan to pay for it. Some type of reform as you suggest sounds wise.
Post a Comment