My Research-Based article on the downside of Universal Health Care

Gambling on Health Care

In America today, over $6,000 is being spent on health care per person per year, “which amounts to sixteen percent of the nation’s GDP” (Clemmitt, Rising Health Costs 1). This percentage is only expected to rise. To confront this problem, the Democrats in Washington have proposed a massive overhaul of our society’s health care system where bureaucrats decide what benefits are cost-efficient and right for citizens (Clemmit, Health-Care Reform 6). Such an approach could feasibly lead to severe rationing of care. My eighty-eight year old grandmother’s private supplemental insurance covered her stay in the cardiovascular intensive care unit for two days last year. The new plan may reject such stays. My grandmother’s case provides an example that the proposed reforms to the United States health care system would be detrimental to peoples’ health, not to mention financial security, and individual freedom.
The senators in support of this massive overhaul believe that it will improve the country’s public health. This conclusion is not necessarily warranted. Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) changed its recommendation for obtaining mammograms. The Heritage Foundation’s publication, “Backgrounder,” examined the new recommendation. The DHHS has changed their ranking for screening forty- to fifty-year-olds from “B” (recommended) to “C” (not recommended). Under the current proposal, only “A” and “B” rankings can be covered, while procedures ranked “C” or “D” will result in higher costs for the patient (7). Stricter rationing means younger women who will still be at risk for breast cancer cannot be covered by the proposal and would have to pay for the screening themselves. This instance is one of many peeks into life with universal care.

Similar incidents have already occurred in Canada, a country utilizing a universal health plan. In Canada, citizens are prohibited from using private sector insurance for government services. In the book Opposing View Points: Health Care, L. Dean Forman mentions how in 1998, 212,900 Canadians waited for surgery for an average thirteen weeks. Due to the limited, predetermined, budget for health care in Canada, rationing is needed, and occurs (Forman 124). Forman mentions a situation a friend went through:

"A Canadian friend had his mother diagnosed with cancer. Scheduling for follow-up tests would routinely take thirty days, followed by another thirty days for results. The doctor’s response during the two-year ordeal, “You’ve lived a good live, you’re seventy-two years old, we’ll make you comfortable." (Forman 124)

This scenario provides a clear example of the consequences of a universal plan passed by this Congress. The government would be forced to save its resources for only the young and deemed useful, while putting our older and more seasoned citizens at greater risk. In Britain, where a nationalized health system is used, ERs were so crowded that patients remained in gurneys in hallways for as much as a few days. The hospital’s solution: take the wheels off the gurneys. Now the gurneys could classify as hospital beds. Care didn’t improve, but statistics showed otherwise (Turner n. pag.). Many also believe that turning over such a vital portion of our economy “to the same unresponsive, anti-entrepreneurial culture that gave us the response to Hurricane Katrina” would be devastating (Gingrich 7).

Another clear concern with this plan is the price tag. Harry Reid originally said this bill would be under $900 Billion, but according to Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus, the total price on this proposal would be either $1 Trillion or $2.5 Trillion. These massive figures depend on when the count starts—now or once the bill goes into effect, in 2014 (Backgrounder 4). The discrepancy between Reid and Baucus’s estimates is easily explained. Congress will collect revenue for the first ten years of enactment, while only paying out benefits the last six years. This spending plan makes the bill look much cheaper than actuality (Backgrounder 5). Unrestricted government spending has become the new norm. The bigger concern in this fiscal debate focuses on the mandate that everyone acquire insurance through some form or face a penalty. Many proponents believe that an individual mandate will encourage personal responsibility by making free riders pay their share. In a publication by the National Federation of Independent business, Michael Cannon explains how this measure discourages personal responsibility. Cannon says,

"[…] There will always be a cost associated with people who take advantage of that generosity. It is part of the price of living in a compassionate society, and right now it comes to less than three percent of medical spending. Forcing others to purchase health insurance via an individual mandate so that you don’t have to pay the costs generated by your own preferences and decisions is the opposite of personal responsibility." (Cannon 2)

An even more destructive idea is to have a mandate for employers to purchase insurance for their employees. In 1993, newly elected President Bill Clinton sums up his concern for an employer mandate: “If you impose an individual mandate [on employers], what is to stop every other employer from just dumping his employees or her employees?” Health insurance is much more expensive for small business owners compared to big business owners given the limited purchasing power of small employers. If an employer mandate were enacted, small businesses would be in jeopardy all across America (Cannon 3).

It is ironic that the congressmen and women who are self-proclaimed pro choice are supporting this bill that limits an individual’s freedom to choose. The issue of personal responsibility should also be viewed as a violation of individual liberty. Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D., the director of the center for health policy studies at the Heritage Foundation, says that, “personal responsibility is not the product of external coercion, rather the fruit of internal decision and the exercise of personal freedom” (Moffit 4). By saying those who would not pay before will become personally responsible by paying now is totally incorrect. One cannot be truly responsible when a government body is forcing him/her to be responsible. This mandate also violates small businesses’ liberties and freedoms. Cannon points out that an employer mandate does not allow businesses to run the way the owner sees fit. Cannon suggests tax reforms and deregulation would help small businesses compete. He argues that individuals should be able to purchase insurance out of state to avoid regulatory costs infringing upon their liberty (3).

Another violation of freedom lies within an additional nationalized insurance plan. These plans, designed to compete with private insurance, would use government price control authority to guarantee a win in the market place (Turner n pag). Private insurance could no longer compete, leaving the government plan as the only option (Turner n pag). Much better plans exist; plans that allow for the exercise of individual liberty. President Bush focused heavily on making consumers aware of the quality and price of plans. He encouraged employers to publish price and quality information. He supported the idea of a consumer driven health plan (CDHPs). Individuals pay more out of pocket costs with CDHPs, but many costs are offset by health savings accounts (HSAs). HSAs are tax deductible that employers can contribute to as well. HSAs also roll over year-to-year and follow the individual when changing jobs. The primary goal behind Bush’s CDHP plan is to encourage people to “shop around until you get the best treatment for the best price” (Clemmit, Rising Health Costs 17).

The health care system in America does need reform. The reform needed, though, is not in the form of a government takeover of one-sixth of the private sector. As mentioned earlier, the reform lies within taxation laws and the deregulation of the insurance and health care industries. Our congressmen and women need to support reforms that are market-based and will keep our country from going completely bankrupt, as Tennessee did when it instated its Medicaid for all policy. Congress must support reforms that preserve the outstanding medical innovativeness we currently experience. This current bill is doing just the opposite. It puts our public health, financial security, and individual freedom at great risk. The decision lies in the hands of Congress, but the American people must be heard, and must stand up for what is right.