Universal Health Care: A Looming Catastrophe
People frequently ask about my position on health care. The incumbent in my race, Mike McNulty, advocates "universal health care." This is a popular idea. It's also dangerously wrong.
When I'm asked about this idea, I often respond by asking: "Why not universal free food, or universal free housing, or universal free clothes?" Why is medical care so special that we need the government to provide it for us?
Universal health care would be the final nail in the coffin of capitalism in health care. The Left probably cheers at this metaphor. They'd like to end capitalism in every area. A conservative friend of mine mocks the liberal position as: "The government should give everyone a million dollars, make everything free, and then we can all go dancing in the fields." You're supposed to flap your arms up and down when you get to the dancing part. He's a really funny guy, perhaps the funniest in Fulton County (and that's saying a lot).
Universal health care is socialized medicine. Period. That's what it is. If you support universal health care, then you do support socialism. You reject capitalism. Fine. If that's your position, then say it proudly. Don't hide behind phony taglines like "universal health care." Call it what it is -- socialist health care.
So this is really the battle between capitalism and socialism, but conducted with proxy metaphors. I'd like to say this is a war between Democrats (for socialism) and Republicans (for capitalism) but the Republican Party and its leaders have been caving in to socialists for so long that it's just a question of where they want government in charge. The Medicare Prescription Drug program was Bush's plan, and it's just socialism. It's actually quite a good example since it's highly bureaucratic and the rules are so complicated no one can figure them out. That's what socialism does for you. If you think big corporations will screw you, imagine how much worse it will be when the government's in charge and has no competition.
As a personal injury attorney, I've had a few Canadian clients and I see what they go through. One guy had a head injury and was having symptoms that seemed consistent with a possible brain injury. I kept telling him to get a CT Scan or MRI of his head. I figured the Canadian system might make him wait a while, and encouraged him to drive into NY and pay for it himself. He hasn't done that yet, and so far Canada is refusing to let him get a scan there. Another client got cut off from physical therapy after three weeks. I don't have that many Canadian clients and I have two solid stories like this.
One of the fundamental underlying problems is a misconception of the word "insurance." We hear about so many people not having health insurance. Universal health care is touted as a solution to the problem of the uninsured.
But what we call "health insurance" is far more than that. It's really a medical payment system masquerading as insurance. We buy insurance to protect ourselves from sudden, unexpected losses. Consider car insurance. It covers accidents. Usually we use car insurance when our car is damaged and it'll cost a lot to fix it. We don't buy car insurance to cover routine oil changes.
So why should health insurance cover your annual physical? Health insurance should be for the rare events, like when you need heart surgery for $50K. If it covers routine things, it's not insurance anymore.
If you go to your primary care doctor once a year, that would only cost you about $100/year. If you had a few visits a year, maybe you'd spend $1000/year. But health "insurance" costs a lot more than that. My family of four spends about $13,000/year on coverage through COBRA from my wife's previous employer. We have some unusually high medical expenses, but I doubt our visits cost more than $5000/year.
There is an approach growing out there now called "consumer-directed care", commonly meaning a high deductible along with a "Health Savings Account" where you can pay for the routine stuff with pre-tax dollars. along the lines of how I started this riff, I wonder when we'll get tax-advantaged accounts for food, housing and clothing. How about a "Fitness Savings Account" so we can join a gym with pre-tax dollars? But i digress. The HSA approach is a lot more like what insurance really is. My family will be moving to that kind of policy next year, if not sooner.
I can imagine the criticism: "But Warren, you're rich. What about those poor working families who can't afford to spend $4000/year on routine health care?"
My response is simple. How much do they spend on food, housing and clothing? That's gotta add up to more than $4000/year for a working family of four. Why don't we give them that stuff for free too? Aw heck, let's just give them all a million dollars, make everything free (start flapping your arms) and we can all go dancing in the fields ...
When I'm asked about this idea, I often respond by asking: "Why not universal free food, or universal free housing, or universal free clothes?" Why is medical care so special that we need the government to provide it for us?
Universal health care would be the final nail in the coffin of capitalism in health care. The Left probably cheers at this metaphor. They'd like to end capitalism in every area. A conservative friend of mine mocks the liberal position as: "The government should give everyone a million dollars, make everything free, and then we can all go dancing in the fields." You're supposed to flap your arms up and down when you get to the dancing part. He's a really funny guy, perhaps the funniest in Fulton County (and that's saying a lot).
Universal health care is socialized medicine. Period. That's what it is. If you support universal health care, then you do support socialism. You reject capitalism. Fine. If that's your position, then say it proudly. Don't hide behind phony taglines like "universal health care." Call it what it is -- socialist health care.
So this is really the battle between capitalism and socialism, but conducted with proxy metaphors. I'd like to say this is a war between Democrats (for socialism) and Republicans (for capitalism) but the Republican Party and its leaders have been caving in to socialists for so long that it's just a question of where they want government in charge. The Medicare Prescription Drug program was Bush's plan, and it's just socialism. It's actually quite a good example since it's highly bureaucratic and the rules are so complicated no one can figure them out. That's what socialism does for you. If you think big corporations will screw you, imagine how much worse it will be when the government's in charge and has no competition.
As a personal injury attorney, I've had a few Canadian clients and I see what they go through. One guy had a head injury and was having symptoms that seemed consistent with a possible brain injury. I kept telling him to get a CT Scan or MRI of his head. I figured the Canadian system might make him wait a while, and encouraged him to drive into NY and pay for it himself. He hasn't done that yet, and so far Canada is refusing to let him get a scan there. Another client got cut off from physical therapy after three weeks. I don't have that many Canadian clients and I have two solid stories like this.
One of the fundamental underlying problems is a misconception of the word "insurance." We hear about so many people not having health insurance. Universal health care is touted as a solution to the problem of the uninsured.
But what we call "health insurance" is far more than that. It's really a medical payment system masquerading as insurance. We buy insurance to protect ourselves from sudden, unexpected losses. Consider car insurance. It covers accidents. Usually we use car insurance when our car is damaged and it'll cost a lot to fix it. We don't buy car insurance to cover routine oil changes.
So why should health insurance cover your annual physical? Health insurance should be for the rare events, like when you need heart surgery for $50K. If it covers routine things, it's not insurance anymore.
If you go to your primary care doctor once a year, that would only cost you about $100/year. If you had a few visits a year, maybe you'd spend $1000/year. But health "insurance" costs a lot more than that. My family of four spends about $13,000/year on coverage through COBRA from my wife's previous employer. We have some unusually high medical expenses, but I doubt our visits cost more than $5000/year.
There is an approach growing out there now called "consumer-directed care", commonly meaning a high deductible along with a "Health Savings Account" where you can pay for the routine stuff with pre-tax dollars. along the lines of how I started this riff, I wonder when we'll get tax-advantaged accounts for food, housing and clothing. How about a "Fitness Savings Account" so we can join a gym with pre-tax dollars? But i digress. The HSA approach is a lot more like what insurance really is. My family will be moving to that kind of policy next year, if not sooner.
I can imagine the criticism: "But Warren, you're rich. What about those poor working families who can't afford to spend $4000/year on routine health care?"
My response is simple. How much do they spend on food, housing and clothing? That's gotta add up to more than $4000/year for a working family of four. Why don't we give them that stuff for free too? Aw heck, let's just give them all a million dollars, make everything free (start flapping your arms) and we can all go dancing in the fields ...
posted by Albany Lawyer at 10:39 PM
14 Comments:
You're totally full of shit. Universal Healthcare doesn't necessarily mean that it needs to be free. What needs to stop is insurance companies having total control and denying claims and looking for ways to avoid payment. It's ridiculous. There should be a standard payment structure and NO pre-existing conditions should wager into that factor. As we all know if a sick person does have coverage the insurance companies simply jack up the rates so high you can't afford it and then they end up dropping it altogether. If you don't see the problem with that system then I'm sorry for you. Business isn't everything, and the economy shouldn't be favored over human lives.
Wow. I'm not just full of shit, but "totally". Our anonymous commenter is living in a fantasyland, where policy choices have no consequences.
As a liberal, I believe that watching out for the greater good is the right thing to do. This is because I believe so much in chance. Everything that ever happens is chance, no matter how much people like to believe otherwise. This idea may seem abstract, but the choices we make are really nothing more than the result of everything of the past. I really do mean everything that’s ever happened. I believe this chaos guides all occurrences, including the imbalances that exist in society, and in individual lives and choices, rather than self determination. As a result, it would be unfair to allow some who have gained fortune to entirely withhold it from the others in society from which it came. I am not saying that we should equalize all imbalances at all, simply that it is only right to do enough to maintain the physical health of all our citizens. To simply say that they didn’t work hard enough or didn’t save enough or spent their money where they shouldn’t have is not good reason to keep the status the same as chance put it, because even those choices are all part of the chaos which is the governing dynamic of our existence. This does not mean the elimination of responsibility, for this would destroy society. It is merely recognition of the chance which guides us all, and responding by being just a little more liberal.
I appreciate the above comment from Anonymous (of course, any comment is a compliment - just the fact someone reads my drivel is a compliment), but notice the subtle dig against conservatives:
As a liberal, I believe that watching out for the greater good is the right thing to do.
This implies that conservatives, or non-liberals generally, are somehow opposed to the greater good.
The touchy-feely approach to healthcare ignores the reality of the problems (in many cases physical health simply cannot be maintained). It also shows disdain for the value of markets. Many liberals reject markets entirely.
I was a conservative republican. In my senior year at The University of Georgia, a person hallucinating on drugs hit my vehicle on my side of the road at 90 miles per hour. He died and I barely survived. My hospital bill was 175,000.00. My face was crushed. While in the hospital I thought, I will hate all the time it will take to get better but I will just have to push myself. Once out of the hospital I noticed some problems that were new. I could not remember things that happened the day before and sharp pin and knife sticks in my scalp, neck, and eyes. It is 13 years later and I have been suffering from level 10 pain everyday for 3 years. With proper care after the wreck I would have been working by now. Those of you are quick to judge think about having an accident thats not your fault, that makes you unable to work or finish college. You are not given time to build savings or have a job. As a republican I thought there should be just enough help to get a person back to work. The system does not work. I was finally given medicaid 2 years ago. I also received food stamps but I was to embarissed to use them. My brain and spinal damage are painful, but it is treatable. My case falls into only 10% of people have nerve damage very bad. Instead of being treat by the expert in Virginia, medicaid pays for Georgia doctors that don't have a clue. If I had finished college and got a job, I would pay my own money, but I was never given a chance to make money. Even with the brain injury I am still smarter than the secretaries and nurses that talk down to me because they assume I am poor dumb trash. You would not be a lawyer if someone almost killed you while you were in college.
You can't help but sympathize with the commenter above, who suffered a horrendous injury in a car accident. However, the comment is not clear about universal health care. Is he saying that he would have done better with universal health care? Or is he saying that universal health care would have left him worse off? Or is he saying that the Medicaid system, which is a weak form of universal health care, didn't work for him so universal health care is a bad idea?
It should also be noted that in New York, a big chunk of the treatment would have been paid by No-Fault (car insurance) from his own insurance company. In his case as well, if the other driver was negligent, his car insurance should have paid a substantial sum.
...landed here after a google search for affordable healthcare. What an arse you are, Albany Lawyer.
Maybe I am an arse, but I don't see how that makes universal healthcare a good idea. I tested the search for affordable healthcare and this blog post doesn't show up. Hmm.
i'm doing a speech tomorrow on why we need universal healthcare, and i'm in college without health insurance right now and when i read you shit lawyer i got pissed. i'm a conservative but i want health care for everyone. my little bros don't have health insurance and it kills me to see them sick. your an ass
it's obviously my fault your little bros dont have health insurance. Maybe if you weren't wasting all that money on college then you could afford it.
To the last anonymous guy with the sick little brother:
Look pal, not everyone is supposed to live. People die. Sick people die, and we shouldn't have to put the burden on the backs of the healthy.
It is not the role of government to be charity, or a health care provider.
Zowie! Not sure I like the tone of that last comment, though I agree that charity is not a proper role for government.
Albany Lawyer, I just want to bring up the statement that you made in your post regarding Canadians coming to the US for specialized care that they aren't getting in their own country, and although I am not saying you are wrong, I also want to bring to your attention that Americans who cannot get health insurance sometimes go to Canada looking for medical help. And its important to note that Canada, at least the last time I checked, doesn't stand for almost every country in Europe (and Japan I believe) which has Universal Health care. Actually, we are the only highly developed nation without UHC. Do you ever wonder why all of these countries have taken the Universal Health Care route? Are they ALL wrong? If you think so, would you suggest that all these countries take our approach?
And of course, realistically, no healthcare program is going to be perfect, and NO Universal healthcare today is perfect. But even with its known imperfection, I try to push for it as much as I can. Why? Because not everyone is given the chance of treatment here in the U.S. without fear of not being able to pay the price...and even with the option of treatment I've noticed far too much that there are always going to be the good and bad doctors, the long waits for appointments, the high prices of insurance and pills. And hardly ever do I find a doctor that tries to educate his or her patients on the causes of your ailment and not simply the addressing the symptoms. Though, thats a different subject...
The fact is, that if you would do some research you would find out that so many people in Europe laugh at our system here, because although we pay almost twice as much as they do, it doesn't always guarantee us better care, and both of us can wait hours in a waiting room. Though, I've found that a lot of the rebuttals against universal healthcare go back to these long waits...and it makes me think, well, wouldn't this be addressed if there were more doctors (esp. in the more specialized fields which is where a lot of people wait months for appointments)? But actually, think about it. Couldn't some major cases to be addressed even sooner? Of course there are always cases of people who had car accidents who need surgery, or cancer patients who have never smoked a cig in their life yet still need chemo for their lung cancer. The problem is that more people blame the doctors but aren't taking personal responsibility for their health and are not learning as much as they can on how to prevent little or major health ailments before they start. And yes, sometimes you can't, and its important that when surgery is needed, then the right people get it in time. But no system is perfect. Here, surgeries which cost thousands of dollars are also performed unnecessarily through plastic surgery in order to look "better", just as one example. These surgeons should be performing the majority of surgery on people who really need it, like someone who has facial deformities after a car crash for example. Although this might not be the best example, it is one, still, and I'd greatly encourage you to do more research on why universal health care can be a positive, as well as why it can be a negative.
So when I say that I am for Universal Health care, please don't say that I am wrong, or to claim many systems all around the world are WRONG. They are doing something right, because most people get at least the preventative care that they need under good Universal Healthcare programs. Then again, we have been doing something right as well, because people come here to get the major surgeries and cancer treatments which undeniably can be prevented in certain instances (the overly obese who need a surgery on their knees, smokers who develop lung cancer..). Both systems have their pros and cons, that is all that I'm trying to address here.
But don't take my word,here are some links that I've came across in my research on Universal health care. I hope you will take the measures to read at least some of the facts, and maybe try to do some more of your own research before saying that ALL Universal health care systems are wrong.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977395328&grpId=3659174697241980&nav=Groupspace
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/33/38979719.pdf
http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm
No, I'm not suggesting that other countries take the current US approach. The current US health care system is too much socialism already.
I'm suggesting that the US avoid more socialism. Universal health care is just a code word for socialism. So far all these excited commenters have failed to dispute that.
No commenter challenges the analogies to universal free food, housing or clothes. nor my attack on using the word insurance for what's really a payment system.
Regarding the last comment, I did want to address another part of it:
Because not everyone is given the chance of treatment here in the U.S. without fear of not being able to pay the price
I see and hear this complaint a lot. Why should medical care be any different from the rest of the economy? You could say the same thing about education. Maybe college should be free. How about cars. I'd really like a Tesla. Maybe the government should make those free. That'd be good for the environment too. Oh Oh Oh Mr. Kotter!! How about housing? Everyone knows about the current subprime mortgage/foreclosure problem, right? Maybe the government should just give everyone houses.
It's socialism. Period.
people in Europe laugh at our system here
Yeah. Until they need some kind of highly specialized surgery, and then they come here because we have the best doctors. Can anyone tell me any cases of Americans going to Europe for medical care?
No. They do go to Singapore and India for medical care, because there are some good hospitals there that cost much less, and that makes sense for certain procedures. And that's capitalism. If we restored capitalism in the US system, then we might have better choices here. Doctors wouldn't have to charge so much because they wouldn't have to deal with all the regulations and with trying to collect all the unpaid bills.
Post a Comment
<< Home